GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
AND WELCOME TO THE LABOR PUBLIC
AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND
RETIREMENT -- COMMITTEE HEARING
TODAY FOR THE OF THE SENATE.
IBM WE WILL.
BEGIN AS A SUB COMMITTEE SINCE
WE DO NOT HAVE.
A QUORUM ESTABLISHED AT THIS
POINT.
I WILL UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO
LEAVE IN PRESENT A BILL SHORTLY
AND TURN THIS OVER TO THE VICE
CHAIR AS SENATOR MORALE. FOR
THAT ALSO WE WILL BE ADOPTING
THE WHEN WE ESTABLISH A QUORUM
AT A LATER POINT IN IT BUT I DID
WANT.
TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT IN THE
FUTURE OUR HEARINGS WILL BE IN
FILE ORDERED NOT TO SIGN IN
ORDER -- AS A CONVENIENCE. TO TO
MEMBERS -- SO VERY GOOD AND I
SEE -- THE LIST THEY DON'T HAVE
OF THE NO.
THERE IT IS -- CONSIDER MORE
MARKETS TO SENATOR HERTZBERG I
SEE YOUR HERE PLEASE.
PROCEED IF YOU WOULD WE HAVE.
SENATOR HERTZBERG ITEM NUMBER
FIVE SB TWO TWENTY NINE WELCOME
[inaudible]
CHAIRMAN.
YES THE GERMAN INTO COMMITTEES
ARCHES CONVERGE OR ISN'T THIS A
MERGER.
YEAH. ONE NOW. ONE NOW -- YOU
KNOW SO IF YOU.
IF YOU GO INTO.
EVERY OFFICE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF THOSE BIG.
POSTERS THAT'S USUALLY REPRINTED
FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
THAT THEY SELL IT OUTLINES THE
PRINCIPLE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
OF EMPLOYERS AND ON THE CORNER
OF THAT.
IN BOLD LETTERS TALKS ABOUT THE
WHISTLE BLOWERS -- FOR
CALIFORNIA.
AND SO.
ON A COUPLE YEARS AGO I DID A
WHISTLE BLOWER BUILD SO
BASICALLY -- REAL LINE AND
IMPROVE UPON THIS IMPORTANT
PUBLIC POLICY GIVING THE RIGHTS
OF EMPLOYEES -- THE ABILITY TO
FEEL COMFORTABLE AND TELL THE
TRUTH ON ON ON ISSUES THAT
RELATE CAR CRITICAL -- TO PART
OF THE SAFETY AND OF EMPLOYEES.
AND SO NOW AS WE MOVE FORWARD
YOU KNOW THE GREAT THING ABOUT
THE LAWS IT'S AN EVER LIVING
ORGANISM AND WE CONTINUE TO
LEARN AND GROW AND COURSE
CORRECT.
AND SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IT
BUILDS UPON THAT BILL I DID A
FEW YEARS AGO THE BILL NUMBER
WHICH I DON'T REMEMBER BUT AND
FOCUS ON BUILDING WAS A FOCUS ON
ISSUES -- BUT THE PRINCIPLE
ELEMENT IS THAT THERE'S OFTEN A
CHALLENGE THAT WHEN YOU WENT
WHEN A WHEN AN EMPLOYEE GETS IN
ORDER FOR THE LABOR COMMISSIONER
THEN AS A VERY CUMBERSOME
PROCESS. TO REDUCE IT TO A
CONTEMPLATE THAT THAN COULD BE
AND ON FORCIBLE ORDER THROUGH
THE SPIRIT COURT.
THIS CREATES A PROCESS FOR A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER AND
EXPEDITES THAT TRANSITION IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO IT. TO
MAKE SURE THAT -- IN ORDER BY
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER IS
PROPERLY ENFORCED UNDER THE LAW
UNDER THE LOS WITH THAT --
PEOPLE SMART.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS.
MITCH DYER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION.
CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN TWO
YEARS BUT WE SPONSORED SB THREE
OH SIX AND WORKED WITH SENATOR
HERTZBERG'S OFFICE ON THE BILL A
FEW YEARS AGO.
TO PRIMARILY DEAL WITH THE
AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WORKERS HAVE
TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHEN
THEY'VE BEEN RETALIATED AGAINST
FOR REPORTING ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
IT CAN EASILY TAKE UP TO TWO TO
THREE YEARS FOR ANYTHING TO
HAPPEN AND SO IN THAT TIME THE
WORKER HAS LIKELY.
FOUND A NEW JOB THEY'VE MOVED ON
TO PROBABLY HAD A FEW DIFFERENT
JOBS SINCE THEN.
AND SO IT ESSENTIALLY THE
RETALIATION HAS WORKED IT IS
SENT THE MESSAGE TO OTHER
EMPLOYEES IT'S CREATED A
CHILLING EFFECT TO MAKE SURE
THAT.
NO ONE ELSE REPORTS WHATEVER THE
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY WAS AND SO.
A FEW AREAS HAVE. TWO TWO NINE
DOES IT ADDRESSES -- A FEW
ISSUES ONE OF WHICH FOR EXAMPLE
IS THAT.
THE BILL WAS SORT OF SILENT ON
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S SECURES A FINAL
ORDER CITATION SO THE
IMPLICATION IS THAT THE LAWSUIT
WOULD BE NECESSARY AND THE WHOLE
POINT OF THE BILL WAS.
TO NOT DEAL WITH THE THREE YEAR
LONG LAWSUIT TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM TO DO SOMETHING MUCH
FASTER AND SO WHAT SB TWO TWO
NINE DOES.
IS ESSENTIALLY JUST ALLOW DEAL I
SEE TO ENFORCE THE CITATION NOT
HAVE TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
REDUCE LITIGATION TO MAKE THE
PROCESS WORK FASTER AND BETTER.
IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT INFORMAL
HEARINGS AS OPPOSED TO FORMAL
HEARINGS CAN BE USED DURING THE
DUE PROCESS THIS GUARANTEED TO
EMPLOYERS.
THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT USED IN
OTHER AREAS OF THE LAW THAT ARE
ENFORCED IDEALISTIC AND SO IT'S
A PROCESS THAT.
OTHER PEOPLE ARE USED TO
ABSOLUTELY PROTECTS DUE PROCESS
FOR EMPLOYERS AND USUALLY
INVOLVES THE DEPUTY LABOR
COMMISSIONER CONDUCTING THE
HEARING RATHER THAN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
AND THE THE IDEAL SEIZE TEND TO
BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FAMILIAR
WITH THE ISSUES AND THIS IS SORT
OF WHAT THEY USUALLY DO AND SO.
IT'S ANOTHER WAY THAT WE THINK
THIS BILL WILL HELP MAKE THAT
PROCESS CREATED BY SB THREE OH
SIX WORK A LITTLE BIT BETTER SO
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
YOUR SUPPORT I'M JUST HERE FOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT THREE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA.
ATTORNEY DAVID BALAM AN ATTORNEY
FOR THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
COMMISSIONER WE'VE REVIEWED THE
THE BILL AND I'M HERE.
FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT
[inaudible]
AS FOR ORDERS.
RECREATION ARE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PLAY MILLERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT
[inaudible]
ANY OPPOSITION.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR OUR
MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT HERE.
QUESTION FROM THE ONES WHO ARE
ARE HERE YES I DIDN'T SEE IT.
GOOD MORNING AND THANK.
SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT --
ASSEMBLY TIGHTENS RULES THAT ARE
BENEFITING.
EMPLOYEE COMPLAINANTS SO THAT
[inaudible]
BERMAN.
WITHOUT A REMEDY IS NO RIGHT AT
ALL -- AND IF WE CAN'T.
COLLECTION THESE JUDGMENTS WHICH
SAYS.
ENERGY SO -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT IT WILL PENALIZE EMPLOYERS
WHO DON'T PAY A JUDGMENT WITHIN
A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS.
ON THE DUE PROCESS ASPECT IT.
IS SAID AFTER SOME KIND OF
SERVICE OR SOMETHING IN THE CASE
THAT THEY THAT THEY'RE AWARE.
OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET
ARM SO THAT JUDGMENT.
AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT
QUESTION IS.
WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES IF THEY
DO NOT PAY WITHIN TEN DAYS I'M
SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH THAT?
WELL SENATOR THE TEN DAYS IS A
PROVISION TO APPEAL A CITATION
SO IT ALLOWS LABOR COMMISSION TO
ISSUE A CITATION.
AND THEN THERE'S A TEN DAY
PERIOD. TO APPEAL IN WHICH THEY
WOULD GET IT A HEARING SO IT'S
IT'S SORT OF A DUE PROCESS
PROTECTION.
SO THE CITATION WOULD LAY OUT
THE PENALTIES.
AND THEN HE WOULD GIVE THE
EMPLOYER EITHER THE OPTION TO
COMPLY WITH THE CITATION.
OR TOO APPEALING IT HERE.
SO OKAY SO IF THEY IF THEY DO
NOT APPEAL THEY HAVE TO PAY
WITHIN THAT IN DAYS FIVE IF THEY
TO APPEAL.
THEN THAT PUSHES THE TIME FRAME
BACK. TO MAKE A PAYMENT ON THE
ON THE JUDGMENT.
WELL YEAH IT WOULD DEPEND IF
THERE WOULD THEN BE HEARING IT
WOULD BE A DUE PROCESS HEARING
SO CONCEIVABLY EMPLOYER COULD
GET A CITATION AND THEN FILE IN.
OUR QUEST FOR HEARING THEN THERE
WOULD BE HEARING IN THE OF THE
EMPLOYER COULD PREVAIL AT THE
HEARING.
HOW WHAT TIMEFRAME ARE WE
LOOKING AT -- IN TERMS OF WHAT
IN TERMS OF THE THE HEARING --
THEY HERE YEAH.
LAKE COUNTY DECISION SO IF I'M
AN EMPLOYER YOU KNOW FOR SOME
FOLKS THE THE THEIR PHILOSOPHY
IS JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE.
SO I'M WONDERING WHAT TIME FRAME
ALONG WITH THAT EMPLOYERS.
ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HOLD N
TO THE FUNDS UNTIL THEY HAD A
THE MOUSE SUB SUBSEQUENT TO A
HEARING AND A DECISION
[inaudible]
I WOULD.
THE THE IDEA BEHIND.
THE THE ORIGINAL BILL IS THE
SPEED THAT UP SO FOR EXAMPLE IF
I MIGHT GIVE AN EXAMPLE AND I
THINK IT'S FAIRLY AT ELEVEN OF
THE OF THE ISSUE -- THE LET'S
SAY THE LABOR COMMISSIONER COMES
TO WORKPLACE AND DOES AN
INSPECTION AND TALKS. TO THREE
OR FOUR WORKERS LET'S SAY AND
THEN LATER THAT AFTERNOON THOSE
THREE OR FOUR WORKERS ARE
TERMINATED.
BY THE LABOR COMMISSIONER.
THEN.
STILL NEEDS TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION UNDER THE LAW BUT
CONCEIVABLY THE INVESTIGATION
PROBABLY WOULDN'T TAKE VERY LONG
IN SUCH A CASE RIGHT SOME
RETALIATION CASES ARE ARE MUCH
MORE COMPLEX.
AND THAT'S WHY WE PRESERVE THE
OLD PROCESS WHEREBY WE FILE A
LAWSUIT.
THIS THIS PROVISION ENVISIONS
THE THESE MORE SORT OF
STREAMLINED CASES I WOULD
IMAGINE AN INVESTIGATION LIKE
THAT COULD TAKE A MATTER OF DAYS.
IN WHICH CASE A CITATION WOULD
ISSUE THAN IT WOULD BE TEN DAYS
IN WHICH TO TO APPEAR.
YEAH AND THEN I THINK THERE ARE
PROVISIONS IN THE LAW AND AT
THAT PROVIDE THAT HEARING HAS TO
BE HELD WITHIN SIXTY OR NINETY
DAYS.
SO THAT WOULD BE -- WE KNOW THAT
THE THE TIME FRAME WOULD
ENVISION HOPEFULLY LESS.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THERE'S A
PROVISION WHEREBY IF AN EMPLOYER --
DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT PREVAIL AT
THE HEARING THEY CAN FILE A WRIT.
IN COURT BUT RATE HEARINGS ALSO
TEND TO GO MUCH MORE QUICKLY
THAN SAY A LAWSUIT IS FILED A
CIVIL COMPLAINT WHICH IS WHAT WE
DO NOW AND AFTERWARDS THE BOND.
AND THEY HAVE THE POST OFFICE.
ONE OF THE MOST BOND TOO SURE
PAYMENT THAT'S RIGHT.
SO IF I'M AN EMPLOYEE AND I I'VE
BEEN FIRED.
ALIENATION.
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW LONGER.
DID THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR SOME
KIND OF DECISION.
BECAUSE FOR SOME PEOPLE THEY
NEED THAT PAYCHECK.
DECISION ANYWAY IMPACT.
WELL THE LEGISLATION WE DID LAST
TIME DRAMATICALLY STREAMLINE
THAT PROCESS AND I THINK EVEN
THE SIXTY OR NINETY DAYS OF THE
APPEAL PROCESS IS BAD WHAT I
WANTED TO DO WE WERE EXAMINING
THIS WE DIDN'T GET THAT FAR.
BUT ULTIMATELY AT THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE DOUBLE
WINDOW WHERE LITERALLY YOU GET
PAID RIGHTTHERE ON THE ON THE
JUDGMENT.
IN IN USE INTERMEDIO BONDING
AGENCY.
INSURANCE COMPANY AND THEN THEY
GO OUT AND COLLECT THE MONEY AND
SPLIT THE BURDEN OF PROOF RIGHT
SO THAT GETTING TO YOUR POINT
THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE WHEN SOMEBODY'S NOT PAID TO
THIS WASTE AFTER SOME OTHER
ISSUE OF RETALIATION.
THE THEY NEED TO PAY THE RENT
PAY FOR THE EXPENSES FIVE SO THE
KEY IS SPEED TO GET TO A PAGE TO
CHECK NOT A RIGHT NOT A A LEAN
AGAINST THE BUILDING NOT.
NOT A A A A LIABILITY AGAINST
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS BUTA
CHECK AND THEN FLIPPED THE
BURDEN AND CREDIT YOU MADE A
LITTLE MAKE A PROFIT TO GO
COLLECT THE MONEY.
RIGHT SO WEIRD BUSH WAS STILL
THAT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS
BUT EACH ONE OF THESE KIND OF
MAKES THE PROCESS FASTER AND
BETTER PARTICULARLY IN THE DEEP
OKAY IN THE CASES WHERE.
YOU'VE GOT TO GO IN AND AND THEN
REDUCE YOUR YOU ORDER TO
JUDGMENT AND YET HIS WHOLE
MCGILLICUDDY WE BASICALLY
EVERYWHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
TO GET TO THE ELEMENT OF WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE STREAMLINING THE PROCESS OF
QUICK EDUCATION ADJUDICATION TO
A CHECK.
RIGHT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE GOING. TO TACTIC
TIMES BY EMPLOYERS.
UNDER THAT.
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE IS TO
BASICALLY SAYING COME GET ME.
AND THEN TODAY.
THEY CAN'T HIDE THE ASSETS OR TO
REQUIRE YOU KNOW GOING THROUGH
THE WHOLE NINE YARDS OR GOING
OUT OF BUSINESS.
SO YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE IN YOUR
SMALLER COMPANIES OR YOU KNOW
LIQUIDATING YOUR ASSETS OR THE
FILING IS SOME OTHER ENTITY AND
THEN YOU YOU'RE CHASING THEM FOR
QUITE SOME TIME -- AND YOUR
HONOR FOR THE VICTIM IS.
PLAINTIFF IN THESE ACTIONS IS
NOT A LOT.
THAT'S WHAT WE DID BACK IN IF
YOU RECALL SOME YEARS AGO WITH
FARMWORKERS WITH THE
SUBCONTRACTORS CASES AND THEY
WERE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT THEY
WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WOULD BE THE
EMPLOYEES AND THEY WOULD GO OUT
OF BUSINESS AND THEN YOU YOU
WERE A LOCK.
RIGHT YEAH THE CUT FOR THE
LIABILITY NUMBER.
YEAH.
THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
MONEY IS THERE.
ONCE THE CASE IS ADJUDICATED AND
THEY ARE [inaudible]
FILE.
THOSE PHONES SO I JUST.
YOU KNOW I KNOW IT'S IT'S BUILT
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GET.
READY SHE ADDED THAT.
NO CALIFORNIA NO FORM YET.
SENATOR WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
AND THEN WILL CALL THE ROLL ARE
YEAH WE GALA FORM.
THE KOREAN CLONING OF NO I GET
WITH THANK YOU SIR JUST JUST
APPRECIATE APPRECIATE THINK
WHERE YOU THAT YOU REALLY YOUR
QUESTIONS.
GET TO THE ESSENCE OF WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO I THINK WE MOVE
MOUNTAINS.
WITH OUR BILL A COUPLE OF WHEN
YOU WIN THE CASE SO WE'RE TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT OF JUST.
OKAY WELL I CALL THE ROLL AND WE
HAVE A QUORUM THANK YOU VERY
MUCH NEXT [inaudible]
SERGEANTS MICHAEL.
HAVE SERGEANTS CONTENT.
CALL THANKS. FOR YOU PROBABLY
ALREADY HAVE [inaudible]
WE HAVEN'T.
OKAY WHO'S NEXT ON THE LIST.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE. TO RESENT
A BILL.
WAS STILL YOUNG YES GO
[inaudible]
I'M READY.
THANK YOU SENATOR [inaudible] TO
I DO MY BUILD.
AND SHE CAN DO.
AND THEN -- WHICH SHE WELCOME
SENATOR GOOD MORNING MISTER
CHAIR.
AND STAFF.
OF THIS IS -- SB.
ONE SEVENTY ONE FLIGHTS A BILL
THAT CAME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
LAST YEAR IT IS A BILL TO FIGHT
PAY DISCRIMINATION WITH DATA.
WITH INFORMATION BECAUSE WHEN IT
COMES TO PAY EQUITY FOR WOMEN.
AND PEOPLE OF COLOR.
YOU CAN'T FIX WHAT YOU DON'T
KNOW.
EQUAL PAY IS AN ISSUE I HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON FOR MANY MANY
FIVE HATE TO SAY DECADES -- AND
OF COURSE -- WE HAVE MADE SOME
PROGRESS.
IN THAT REGARD AND YET THEY'RE
STILL ARE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES
ASSOCIATED WITH ON EQUAL PAY.
AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE ON
EQUAL PAY IS OFTEN HIDDEN FROM
SIGHT.
NOT TRUST THE TWO EMPLOYEES BUT
OFTEN TO EMPLOYERS -- WHILE PAY
INEQUITY CONTINUES MOST
EMPLOYERS I BELIEVE DO NOT
INTEND TO DELIBERATELY
SHORTCHANGE THEIR EMPLOYEES.
I CAN'T THINK OF TOO MANY
EMPLOYERS I COULD ENVISION
WAKING UP IN THE MORNING SAYING
OH GOODY HOW CAN I MAKE SURE
THAT.
I'M NOT PAYING WOMEN EQUALLY TO
MEN I JUST THINK THAT THERE ARE
IMPLICIT SITUATIONS THAT EXIST.
AND THAT THIS IS A MEASURE THAT
WILL TRY TO PUT A MIRROR -- TO
IMPLORE YOUR PRACTICES SO THAT
WE CAN -- RESOLVING CORRECT
THESE DISPARITIES. TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE SO.
RECOGNIZING PAY DISCRIMINATION
IS HARD TO DETECT IN A DRESS THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED.
DURING ITS TERM A PROPOSED
REVISION TO THE DEMOCRATIC
REPORT THAT LARGE EMPLOYERS
LARGE EMPLOYERS HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTING FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS
SO THIS ISN'T REALLY KNEW WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS TRYING.
TO EXPAND THE EMPLOYER
INFORMATION REPORT THE E. O. ONE
TWO IN COURT -- INCLUDE THE
REPORTING OF PAY DATA.
BY RACE AND BY GENDER --
BEGINNING IN.
TWENTY EIGHTEEN THAT WAS THE
NATURE OF THE BILL OF PROVIDE
THAT ADMINISTRATION AGAIN BUT IN
AUGUST TWENTY SEVENTEEN THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PUT A HALT
TO THIS NEW RULE.
DETAILING I SHOULD SAY TO
DEALING A SIGNIFICANT BLOW TO
THE EFFORT TO FIND AND TO
ACHIEVE EQUAL PAY.
NOW THE BREAKING NEWS IS THE
TRUST THIS PAST MONTH JUST A
COUPLE WEEKS AGO A FEDERAL JUDGE.
ORDERED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
TO REINSTATE THIS RULE AND TO
MOVE FORWARD COLLECTING THIS
IMPORTANT DATA.
THE WE BELIEVE THIS DECISION.
MAY BE APPEALED IT APPEARS MORE
AND MORE INEVITABLE THIS DATA IS
GOING TO BE COLLECTED SOONER.
RATHER THAN LATER AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL MAKING THE REQUEST OF THIS
BILL EVEN EASIER AND CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYERS BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA
BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDED UNDER
THE FEDERAL LAW -- MODEL CLOSELY
AFTER THE EOC ORDER SB ONE
SEVENTY ONE WILL REQUIRE
EMPLOYERS WITH A HUNDRED OR MORE
EMPLOYEES AND I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE. TO EMPHASIZE THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT YOUR MOM
AND POP SHOP BUT A COMPANY WITH
A HUNDRED OR MORE EMPLOYEES --
TO SUBMIT A PAY DATA REPORT
ANNUALLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
OUTLINING THE COMPENSATION IN
HOURS WORKED OF EMPLOYEES BY
GENDER.
RACE ETHNICITY AND JOB CATEGORY
AND I SHOULD NOTE IF THEY HAVE
TO REPORT THE SAME OR SIMILAR
DATA TO THE FEDS WILL ALLOW THE
SUBMISSION OF THE EO ONE FORM.
FOR OUR STATE AGENCIES AS WELL
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DUPLICATE
THE PROCESS USING THE SAME FORM
THAT EXISTS.
AND THE GOAL OF THIS BILL IS TWO
FOLD.
FIRST TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYERS TO
ANALYZE THEIR OWN PAY PRACTICES
AND ALLOW FOR SELF EVALUATION
AND SELF CORRECTION IN OTHER
WORDS THAT LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
TO TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
TOGETHER IMPORTANT DATA THAT
ALLOWS THEM TO SEE PATTERNS OF
WAGE DISPARITIES AND IF THEY
NOTICED THE STEVE DEVIATIONS OR
WHAT WE CALL OUT LIARS TO
INVESTIGATE THEM FURTHER.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THOUGH
BASED ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION
THAT'S OUT THERE TO NOTE THE
WHAT THIS BILL DOES NOT DO.
THE BILL IS NOT ABOUT PUBLIC
SHAMING AND I WANT TO BE REALLY
CLEAR ABOUT THAT MY GOAL HERE IS
TO NOT TO SHAME ANY COMPANY BUT
TO EDUCATE THEM AND TO GET THEM
TO DO THE RIGHT THING I BELIEVE
UNTIL I'M PROVEN WRONG.
THAT WHEN EMPLOYERS KNOW THAT
WHAT THEY'RE DOING DOES IN FACT
DISCRIMINATION AND A LOT OF THAT
DISCRIMINATION IS ALREADY
UNLAWFUL THAT THEY WILL CORRECT
THEIR POLICIES.
AND THAT IS THE GOAL HERE SO IT
IS NOT TO SHAME.
ARE A NOR WILL IT EXPOSED
EMPLOYEES PRIVATE FINANCIAL.
PUBLIC AND I'VE DONE SOMETHING I
DON'T USUALLY DO -- I HAVE ALSO
INCLUDED THAT THIS BILL WILL
PROHIBIT PUBLIC RECORD ACT
DISCLOSURE.
SO THE COMPANIES WE'LL BE ABLE
TO DEAL HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY
WITHOUT THE THE THE WORRY THAT --
THE INFORMATION WILL ULTIMATELY
BE MADE AVAILABLE -- WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO GET SUPPORT.
ON THIS OR OR THE THAT GROUPS
THE GENERALLY WANT THE PUBLIC
RECORDS DISCLOSURE HAVE ACCEPTED
THIS I BELIEVE I DON'T BELIEVE
WE HAVE ANY OTHER.
OBJECTION FROM THEM IT'S IT'S
SORT OF A HARD PILL FOR ME TO
SWALLOW BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN
TRANSPARENCY BUT AGAIN THE GOAL
HERE IS TO GET COMPLIANCE AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH -- SO OF THIS IS BEEN
GOING ON AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
THEY'VE HD NO ISSUE.
WITH ON TOWARD DISCLOSURE OF
THIS DATA IN THE FIFTY PLUS
YEARS CENSUS FORMS BEEN IN PLACE.
THIS DATA WILL PROVIDE THE
BIRD'S-EYE VIEW AND PAY
DISPARITY AND OCCUPATIONAL
SEGREGATION WHICH WE BELIEVE IS
PROBABLY -- ALSO A SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE THE INFORMATION IS NOT
INTENDED CANNOT BE USED TO
ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA FAIR PAY
ACT WHICH I AUTHORED THAT KIND
OF INFORMATION ABOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR WORK IN
BONA FIDE.
REASONS FOR PAY DIFFERENTIALS IS
NOT PART OF THIS REPORT THAT'S
NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ASCERTAIN.
AND EMPLOYERS WILL NOT BE
EXPOSED IN THAT MANNER SO THIS
IS A TOOL. TO SHED LIGHT ON
TRENDS IN ON THE BIG PICTURE --
EQUAL PASTING IN THE LONG
CALIFORNIA FOR SEVENTY YEARS IT
RECENT TO THE STUDIES PREDICT
WE'RE STILL NOT MOVING TOWARDS --
THAT GOAL WE MAY NOT GET IT.
FOR GOODNESS ALMOST A HUNDRED
YEARS IF WE DO NOT MAKE THESE
CHANGES 40% OF HOUSEHOLDS HAVE
WOMEN IS THE SOUL OF WE NEED TO
SUPPORT OUR FAMILIES AND WE
SHOULD BE PAID EQUALLY AND
FAIRLY FOR THE WORK WE DO.
THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE
TOOLS IN THE TOOL KIT AND WITH
THAT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR IPHONE.
THANK YOU SENATOR I THINK WE
HAVE A QUORUM SO SECRETARY WOULD
YOU LIE TAKE THE ROLE
[inaudible]
SENATOR HILL.
MORRELL MORRELL HERE JACKSON
HERE JACKSON HERE MITCHELL HERE
MITCHELL HERE PAT.
AND HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WE HAVE A
QUORUM -- SUPPORTERS WOULD YOU
LIKE.
TO THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MARIE
GO YOSHIHARU OUT WITH THE
ASSOCIATION WHERE PRADA CO
SPONSOR THIS BILL.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST GO
OVER PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND
BEHIND THE PAID THE FEDERAL PAY
DATA REPORTING RULE AND JUST
EXPLAIN WHY THESE REPORTS WILL
HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THE
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE
ONGOING RACE AND GENDER WAGE
GAPS?
SO FIRST I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO FULLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
THAT WENT INTO THE FEDERAL
REPORTING REVISED -- FOR EO ONE
REPORTS SO THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION THE EOC
BACK IN -- TWO THOUSAND TEN JOIN
OTHER EDERAL AGENCIES TO COME
UP WITH A WAY TO BETTER SO THAT
THEY CAN COME UP WITH A BETTER
WAY TO ENFORCE OUR HE
DISCRIMINATION LAWS.
AND SO BACK IN TWO THOUSAND TEN
THEY ISSUED A STUDY -- THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
ISSUED A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.
TALKING ABOUT THE VALUE OF
ENFORCEMENT OF COLLECTION OF PAY
DATA FOR FROM EMPLOYERS BY SEX
RACE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN.
THROUGH A SURVEY SUCH AS THE EO
ONE THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT
THE EEOC CONDUCT A PILOT STUDY.
TO INFORM THE PARAMETERS OF A
PAY DATA COLLECTION WHICH THEY
DID AND THIS -- THIS PILOT STUDY
MADE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
ABOUT CENTRAL COMPONENTS OF PAY
DATA COLLECTION INCLUDING THE
UNIT OF PAY TO BE COLLECTED THE
BEST SUMMARY MEASURES OF RATES
OF PAY.
APPROPRIATE STATISTICAL TESTS
FOR ANALYZING PAY DATA REPORTS
AND THE MOST EFFICIENT AND LEAST
COSTLY METHODS FOR TRANSMITTING
PAY DATA FROM EMPLOYERS.
AND SO ACCORDING TO THE EEOC IS
CALCULATION IT ONLY TAKES
FIFTEEN HOURS FOR THESE REPORTS
TO BE PUT TOGETHER.
AND THE EDT IS MOST RECENT DATA
SHOWS THAT LESS THAN 2% OF
CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES HAVE A
HUNDRED OR MORE EMPLOYEES.
GET THAT COVERS THE EMPLOYEE 44%
OF CALIFORNIANS WORK FORCE
SEVERAL ONLY IMPACTING A
RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF
BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA YET
WERE POTENTIALLY BENEFITING
ALMOST HALF OF CALIFORNIA
WORKERS.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT KEEP IN MIND
THAT EMPLOYERS ARE ALREADY
GEARING UP TO PRESENT HIS
REPORTS ANYWAY.
BEFORE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
PUT A HALT TO IT AND I SENATOR
JACKSON MENTIONED THERE WAS A
RECENT GOOD DECISION AND ON THE
DC COURT -- THERE WAS A A BLOG
FROM A ONE OF THE LARGEST
EMPLOYER DEFENSE FIRMS THAT --
WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE
RECENT DC DECISION BUT THEN ALSO
WROTE THAT THERE'S A REPRIEVE
BECAUSE THE EO ONE FORMS HAVEN'T
BEEN UPDATED H
BUT WHAT THIS ARTICLE SAID IT
ADVISED EMPLOYERS THAT THEY
SHOULD QUOTE STILL BE PREPARED
FOR THIS TO CHANGE AT A MOMENT'S
NOTICE AND SHOULD BEGIN
PREPARING FOR SUCH PAY
DISCLOSURES IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A PRETTY
BROAD UNDERSTANDING FROM EVEN
WITHIN THE EMPLOYER COMMUNITY
THAT THESE PAY DATA REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS WILL EVENTUALLY GO
INTO A FACT ALL THIS BILL DOES
IS GET THINGS MOVING.
HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
AND THE REAL QUICKLY WHAT IS
INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT I THINK
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT EQUAL PAY WE
TYPICALLY TALK ABOUT IT IN TERMS
OF WHAT IS EMPLOYEE A WHO IS A
WOMAN A PERSON OF COLOR.
MAKING COMPARED TO EMPLOYEE BE
WHO IS A WHITE MAN AND IS THERE
A WAGE DISPARITY IN CANNOT BE
EXPLAINED.
AND OFTEN THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL
WAGE DISPARITY IN THAT IS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE OVERALL WAGE
GAP.
BUT WHAT GETS LESS ATTENTION BUT
IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS
OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION AND
HIRING AND PROMOTION PATTERNS
THAT ARE CAUSING WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR TO BE.
OVERLY REPRESENTED AN OVERLY
CONCENTRATED IN THE LOWEST
PAYING JOBS.
SO.
WHAT THIS BILL WILL DEAL WITH
THESE REPORTS WILL DO WILL GIVE
US THAT HIGH LEVEL LOOKS SO WE
CAN SEE WHERE THOSE PAY PATTERNS
EXIST WE'VE SEEN LARGE EMPLOYERS
LIKE SALES FORCE THE GAP
STARBUCKS VOLUNTARILY PUT
TOGETHER THESE PAY AUDIT REPORTS
AND WHAT?
THEY WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT
IT ALLOWS THEM TO IDENTIFY WHERE
THERE ARE WEAK SPOTS.
WHERE OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION
IS IMPACTING THE OVERALL WAGE
DISTRIBUTION AND AGAIN IS IT
CAUSING WOMEN PEOPLE OF COLOR TO
BE OVERLY CONCENTRATED OVERLY
REPRESENTED IN THESE LOWER
PAYING JOBS WHEN YOU HAVE? 80%
OF ALL AGES GOING TO HANDFUL
WHITE MEN.
NOW DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE'S
AN EQUAL PACKED BY ELATION NOT
NECESSARILY -- BUT IT DOES MEAN
THAT THOSE EMPLOYER SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT THEIR PAY PRACTICES
THEIR PROMOTION PRACTICES TO TRY
TO FIGURE OUT WHY THOSE PATTERNS
IS IT EXIST AND WHAT THEY CAN DO
BETTER -- AND IN TERMS OF HOW
THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING CAN USE THIS DATA.
THEY CAN LOOK AT PATTERNS ACROSS
INDUSTRIES AND WITHIN INTO
INDUSTRIES SO HOW DOES THE TECH
SECTOR COMPARED TO THE
HEALTHCARE SECTOR.
WHO HAS THE HIGHEST PAID JOBS
WHO HAS THE LOWEST PAID JOBS?
AND IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW THE
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
HOUSING TO IDENTIFY THE OUTLIERS
WITHIN INDUSTRIES ARE THERE
COMPANIES THAT ARE CONSISTENTLY
SHOWING THAT SAY.
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES OR
WOMEN ARE PAID 3240% LESS THAN
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
MEN.
AND AGAIN DOES THAT MEAN THAT
THERE'S AN EAGLE PAD VIOLATION
OR PAY DISCRIMINATION VIOLATION
NOT NECESSARILY BUT IT DOES MEAN
THAT IT SHOULD DESERVE FURTHER
SCRUTINY IN THIS THAT'S WHAT
THIS THESE REPORTS WERE ALLOWED
OUR STATE AGENCIES TO DO.
SO WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE TOOL
THAT WILL PROMPT US HISTORY
CHANGES AS WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE
COMPANIES THAT HAVE THAT DONE
THIS VOLUNTARILY.
AND SERVER THESE REASONS WE ARE
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
ENERGY ABOUT EITHER.
GOOD MORNING SHANNON SMITH
CROWLEY REVERSING THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO ADD
THE TERRIFIC TEST MANY ONE THING
ON ON THE EAGLE -- ONE FORM
THOUGH I DID WANT TO I THOUGHT.
I TOOK NOTE OF WAS I THINK IT
WAS AN ADDITIONAL FOUR HUNDRED
AND THIRTY SIX DOLLARS PER
EMPLOYER PER YEAR. TO FILE THIS
THIS ADDITIONAL FORM.
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT IS.
SENATOR JACKSON SAID.
IT IS TAKING SO LONG TO CLOSE
THE GENDER PAY GAP IN FACT.
THE MOST RECENT DATA FROM
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN WOMEN --
LOOKING AT THE DATA FROM
200-022-00015.
WAY BEFORE THAT WE SAID WAS
GOING TO TAKE ABOUT FIFTY YEARS
TO CLOSE THE GENDER PAY GAP.
LOOKING AT THE MORE RECENT DATA.
IT'S A HUNDRED AND ONE YEARS.
WE ALSO LOOK AT WHY.
THAT WERE HAVING THIS AND WE'RE
LOOKING AT THE STUDIES THAT SAY.
ONLY ABOUT 6212% OF THIS.
IS BELIEVED TO BE OUT RIGHT
DISCRIMINATION OR BIAS.
BUT IT'S NOT THE EMPLOYER WAKING
UP IN THE MORNING AND HOW AM I
GOING TO PAY PAY WOMEN LESS.
ITS PERPETUATION OF THE STATUS
QUO AND WE'VE DONE A LOT IN THE
LAST FEW YEARS FOR INSTANCE --
LIMITING THE USE OF ASKING
SOMEBODY ABOUT THEIR PRIOR
SALARY IF IT WAS LOW IT JUST IS
GOING TO CONTINUE INTO THEIR
NEXT JOB.
BUT A LOT OF IT IS JUST LIKE.
TAKING YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE HOW
DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE HIGH BLOOD
PRESSURE YOU NEED TO TREAT.
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY HAPPEN
HAVEN'T MEASURED.
SO THIS -- THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF WOMEN'S IN
OF THE LONG TERM ECONOMIC.
IMPACT ON WOMEN IN THEIR
FAMILY'S BEEN ABLE TO SAVE FOR
RETIREMENT.
BEING ABLE TO TO HELP PAY FOR
CHILDREN SCHOOL AND LOOKING AT
THE NUMBER OF WOMEN RIGHT NOW
THAT ARE ON A LOT OF PUBLIC
BENEFITS.
THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE ON THAT
IF THEY WERE MAKING EQUAL PAY.
SO WE HAVE THREE I HAVE A
NEITHER.
MR WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION ALSO IN SUPPORT.
I ANGER I'M A SILLY OF
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
GEN GARY FROM THE LATE AT WORK
AND SUPPORT.
ANY IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING MANY MEMBERS AND
STAFF WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY MY
NAME'S LAURA CURTIS AND I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
FIRST I DO WANT TO COMMENT THAT
THIS BILLS VERSION LAST YEAR WAS
A CAL CHAMBER JOB KILLER -- THE
AUTHOR WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH US
IN GOOD FAITH TO AMEND THE BILL
AND IN ORDER TO ADD THOSE
PROVISIONS THAT SHE DISCUSSED
REGARDING THE RECORDS REQUEST
ACT AND AND OTHER ITEMS -- AND
SO WE ARE STILL IN IN A POST
POSITION THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF
THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT AND
THE REASON BEING IS THAT YES
WHILE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
NOW OR THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
NOW SAID.
THAT TO THE EO ONE REPORT WILL
BE REQUIRED WE ARE AM.
KILLED AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW
LONG THAT APPEAL PROCESS WILL GO
ON AND SO THAT'S OUR CONCERN AS
OF RIGHT NOW WITH REGARD TO THAT
UNDERLYING ISSUES WITH THIS FORM
AND THE REQUIREMENTS.
ARE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO
ACTUALLY SHOW THE WAGE DISPARITY
AND THAT THE EQUAL PAY ACT WAS
GOING AFTER AND THAT'S THE FACT
THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHAU
UNLAWFUL WAGE DISPARITY -- YOU
ACTUALLY FOR THE MOST PART WE DO
WE DON'T WANT UNLAWFUL WHICH
SEVERITY BUT WE DO WANT WAGE
DISPARITY IN SOME REGARD YOU
WANT TO BE ABLE TO PAY YOUR
EMPLOYEES MORE IF THEY'VE BEEN
WITH THE COMPANY FOR LONGER SO
IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S BEEN
THERE FOR TWO WEEKS.
VERSUS SOMEONE THAT'S BEEN WITH
YOU FOR THIRTY YEARS YOU WANT TO
BE ABLE TO REWARD THAT PERSON
THEY WOULD HAVE THE EXACTSAME
JOB TITLE SO ON THIS REPORT IT
WOULD SHOW THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL
WAS MAKING MORE AND ONE
INDIVIDUALS MAKING LESS.
AND REGARDING GENDER THAT COULD
BE SHOWN THAT THE MALES MAKING
MORE OF THE FEMALES MAKING MORE
BUT THIS AGGREGATE DATA IS NOT
GOING TO SHOW WHY THOSE TO AND
DIFFERENTIALS ARE THERE.
SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO
SHOW THAT THIS PERSON HAS BEEN
THERE FOR LONGER OR THIS PERSON
HAD CAME IN WITH A HIGHER DEGREE
OR ANY OF THOSE ISSUES AND SO.
THAT'S ARE CONCERNED THAT IT'S
GOING TO SHOW THE WAGE --
DISPARITY BUT NOT NECESSARILY
THE UNLAWFUL WAGE DISPARITY --
ADDITIONALLY WITH THAT -- WE DO
FEEL THAT SB ONE SEVENTY ONE IS
PREMATURE IN THAT THE PAY EQUITY
TASK FORCE IS STILL COMING OUT
WITH THE REPORTS.
ON THE EQUAL PAY ACT AND
ENFORCEMENT ON THAT ACT AND WHAT
THAT -- BUT THE THEIR COMMENTS
ON THAT AND SO WE THINK THAT
UNTIL THOSE REPORTS ARE OUT AND
BEEN ANALYZED IN THE PACKWOOD HE
TAUGHT AND THE BAD EQUAL PACKED
HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR LONGER.
ALLOWED EMPLOYERS TO COMPLY THEN
AND THIS BILL IS PREMATURE AND
THAT IT MIGHT REQUIRE THE
ADDITIONAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS ARE
IN LINE WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS CRISTINA
KAYLEE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION
SORRY CENTER MITCHELL AT MY BACK
TO YOU HERE -- I WANTED TO A THE
MECHANICS OF THE BILL IF YU
WILL -- I THINK IS YOUR
COMMITTEE HAS NOTED WELL ON PAGE
FOUR OF THE ANALYSIS.
THE COMMITTEE MAY WISH TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLARITY --
ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE EO ONE
FORM IN COMPLIANCE WITH SB --
ONE SEVEN ONE I'VE DRAFTED SOME
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE OR THE
COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER BUT THE
POINT IS IN SUBDIVISION HALF.
OF THE BILL TO MAKE VERY CLEAR
THAT THE ANNUAL FILING OF THE EO
ONE FORM WOULD BE DEEMED. TO BE
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SB.
ONE SEVEN ONE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT THAT YOUR COMMITTEE
SUGGESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE.
SEVEN WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT WE
MERE THE FEDERAL PENALTIES FOR
DISCLOSURE BY GOVERNMENTAL
EMPLOYEES.
THE LAST ITEM IS IN SECTION ONE
OF THE BILL SUBDIVISION F. AS
WELL IN THE LAST SENTENCE -- WE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE STRUCK THE OR
THROUGH THE NORMAL RULES OF
DISCOVERY IN A CIVIL ACTION.
I THINK THE GOAL HERE IS TO
ENSURE IN FACT THAT THIS
INFORMATION WILL NOT BE
DISCLOSED.
CLEARLY THE AUTHOR HAS INDICATED
THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT
TO A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.
IT SHOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE.
TO LATEST COUNCIL -- EITHER IN
THAT REGARD.
AND THEN THE SECOND POINT IS
CONCEPTUAL IDLE KNOW IF ANYONE'S
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT
THE AEO ONE FORM.
BUT USE UTILIZES BROAD JOB
CATEGORIES.
AND IT'S AN AGGREGATE NUMBER.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT THE
INFORMATION IN FACT I WOULD
PROBABLY -- AGREE THAT IT WILL
LIKELY SHOW A DISPARITY -- WHEN
YOU AGGREGATE A LARGE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE?
CATEGORIES YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT PEOPLE AT THE LOW
END OF THE PAY SCALE TO THE HIGH
END OF THE PAY SCALE.
AND REMEMBER WHEN WE WORK
DILIGENTLY WAS WAS SENATOR
JACKSON AND SOME OF THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS EXACT BILL
ONE OR SB.
THREE FIFTY EIGHT THE WE CHANGE
THE DEFINITION OF EQUAL PAY FOR
I'M SORRY YES EQUAL PAY FOR
EQUAL WORK TO EQUAL PAY FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR.
USING THOSE BROAD CATEGORIES
DOES NOT.
DO THAT OKAY DOESN'T TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION.
A SUBSTANTIALLY COMPARABLE TYPE
INFORMATION BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY
THAT AGGREGATE DATA DOESN'T IN
ANY WAY ALLOW.
FOR THE BONAFIDE FACTORS IS THE
WAGE DISPARITY LAWFUL THAT'S THE
KEY.
AND SB THREE FIFTY EIGHT
CODIFIED THINGS LIKE EXPERIENCE
EDUCATION TRAINING AS BONAFIDE
FACTORS.
NOW IF YOU CAN'T DO ANY BONAFIDE
FACTORS THEN CLEARLY IS UNLAWFUL
PAY DISPARITY.
AND THERE'S YOU KNOW THAT'S
THAT'S WHAT THE LAW IS TODAY BUT
I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS AGGREGATE
DATA IS GOING TO BE A PANACEA.
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS
WAGE DISPARITY THAT IS UNLAWFUL
THANK YOU.
SENATOR YOU WINNING.
JACKSON.
OPPOSITION I'M SORRY YEAH CAN
STONE STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
ANY OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
MOVE THE BILL.
SENATOR WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO
ACCEPT.
THE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY ON THAT
HE I'M WILLING TO DISCUSS.
ANYTHING THAT WILL.
CONTINUE -- TO MOVED TO BUILD
AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL
THE PARTIES IS I'VE ARTICULATED
WHAT OUR INTENTION IS I'M ALWAYS
HAPPY TO TALK WITH THE
OPPOSITION.
AND I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO
CONTINUE TALKING WITH THEM.
OKAY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
THE MEMBERS.
SENATOR PAN THANK YOU AND THANK
YOU SENATOR JACKSON FOR RAIN
THIS BILL FORD AND AND PROJECT
AS AN EDUCATION MAY BUT JUST TO
CLARIFY I MEAN BASICALLY WHAT
WE'RE YOU'RE JUST ASKING HIM
AGAIN MEMBER SAW THIS BILL
BEFORE YES IS IS THAT THE EO ONE
WHICH COMPANY HAS TO READY.
COMPILE CELLS NOT DIGITAL WORK --
ACTUALLY BE SUPPLIED TO THE
APPROPRIATE.
STATE AGENCY DIVISION OF LABOR
STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT CORRECT
AND THAT INFORMATION IS.
CAP -- I MEAN IT KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL
COMPANIES YES THEY CAN REPORT
ACCURATELY RIGHT SO THE DEFEAT
THE REPORTING WOULD BE TO
DEPARTMENT FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSE
RIGHT OKAY AND SO.
AND SO.
I REALIZE THAT THE STATE ISN'T
PERFECT RIGHT -- IT'S THERE.
IT DEALT.
IF SOMEONE WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING
TO LET'S SAY PUNISH A COMPANY OR
SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING THEY
WOULD DELVE DEEPER DAY WHEN USE
THAT AS THE SOLE SOURCE BUT I
MEAN IT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO
KIND OF SCAN AND SEE WHAT THE
OVERALL PICTURE IS.
IS THAT IS THAT IN MY EXACTLY
RIGHT IT AND NOT TO BE CONFUSED
WITH THE SP THREE FIFTY EIGHT
WHICH TIME.
AWARE OF WE'RE NOT LOOKING HERE.
T SEE IF COMPANIES ARE
VIOLATING ARE EQUAL PAY ACT.
SO THE I I I WANNA MAKE SURE
WE'RE NOT CONFUSING THE TO THIS
IS TO LOOK AT SORT OF A THE THE
THIRTY THOUSAND FOOT VIEW -- IT
DESIGNED IN GREAT MEASURE TO
GIVE COMPANIES INFORMATION THAT
THEY MIGHT NOT BE AWARE OFF IN
THAT.
THE DISPARITIES THAT EXIST IN
THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES THE
OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION WHICH
WE BELIEVE.
PUBLICLY DOES EXIST IN MANY
COMPANIES AND THEN TO ALSO LOOK
AT OUT LIARS WHERE IT MIGHT BE --
EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT ALLOWING
COMPANIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THOSE PROBLEMS -- IT
AGAIN THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY.
DO TO WAGE DISPARITIES THAT ARE
UNLAWFUL THAT THE REFERENCE IT
WAS MADE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE THERE
ARE OFTEN TIMES GOOD
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHY PEOPLE.
ARE PAID DIFFERENTLY -- I
SUSPECT WHAT WE'LL FIND IS THAT
THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE MALE
EMPLOYEES.
WHITE MALE EMPLOYEES HAVE GOTTEN
INCREASES OVER FEMALE EMPLOYEES
WHO MAY BE MORE QUALIFIED MORE
EXPERIENCED AT SCEPTER BUT
THAT'S HOW WITH THIS BILL IS
DESIGNED TO DO.
OKAY TO LOOK AT THE THE THE BIG
PICTURE.
TO TO HAVE COMPANIES OF VALUE
WAIT IF AND WHY.
THEY HAVE SUCH JOB SEGREGATION --
N. N. IN HOPES THAT THEY WILL
CORRECT THOSE FOR THAT THEY WILL
WORK AFFIRMATIVELY TO CORRECT
THOSE.
INSTANCES WHERE TO ALLOW D. FBIH
IF THERE'S AN EXAMPLE AND OUT
LIAR WHERE THEY'RE AT THE
SITUATION IS MORE EXTREME TO BE
ABLE TO TAKE A DEEPER DIVE AND
TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING
ON I WON'T BE HERE IN A HUNDRED
YEARS AND NEITHER WILL JUST
ABOUT ANYBODY.
ELSE.
BUT WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING THIS
BATTLE FOR EQUAL PAY FOR SEVENTY
YEARS NOW AND WE ARE NOT GETTING
TO THE WE'RE NOT SEEING.
OF THE FINISH LINE AND THIS IS
JUST ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX
IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO REPLACE --
THREE FIFTY EIGHT EQUAL PAY IT
IS JUST ANOTHER TOOL THAT WILL
ALLOW US AND CALIFORNIA'S I'M
STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT. 44% OF
CALIFORNIA'S WORKFORCE WORKS
ONLY WITHIN 2% OF THE EMPLOYERS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF BIG COMPANIES
OUT THERE THAT ARE -- NEEDING TO
KNOW JUST EXACTLY WHETHER THEY%
ARE.
HELPING OR **** INCREASING THE
PROBLEM ON PAY EQUITY AND AND
AND THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
AND IN JUST ONE OTHER ISSUE
BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THIS
INFORMATION FOR COMPANY HAVE TO
BE RECORD IS.
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL CELLS.
THE CONCERN ANY OF I KNOW IT'S
GOING TO JUDICIARY STIMULATE
PUNDITS HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT
LITIGATION I MEAN I DON'T THIS.
WELL WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
ADDITION YEAH WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN
THE FIFTY YEARS THAT THE EASIER
ONES BEEN IN PLACE -- AS I HAD
MENTIONED I TOOK OUT THE THE
REQUIREMENT TO THE PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUIREMENT TO TRY TO
MAINTAIN THAT -- CONFIDENTIALITY
AND JOB I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO
TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE BUT I THINK
IT'S AGAIN JUST SORT OF A FALSE
NARRATIVE ON ON WHAT WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO COLLECT INFORMATION.
THANK YOU THANKS SO MUCH.
OKAY SENATOR WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE I'LL USE THAT AS MY
CLOTHES -- THIS BILL CAME BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE LAST YEAR.
AND IT'S MY HOPE THAT THIS YEAR --
WE CAN MOVE THE BALL FORWARD THE
RECENT DECISION BY THE COURT IT
MAY BE APPEALED ALL THE MORE
REASON FOR CALIFORNIA TO AGAIN
BE IN THE FOREFRONT.
IN DEALING WITH AND SETTING THE
EXAMPLE OF WHAT EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY TRULY MEANS.
IT'S GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY IT'S
GOOD FOR OUR FAMILIES -- IT'S
GOOD FOR THE STATE AND WITH THAT
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE
SENATE JUDICIARY SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
[inaudible]
HILL.
MORRELL.
NO.
ROLL THE WE HAVE AN APPROVED
RULES [inaudible]
YEAH WE THE BILL ON CALL.
SORRY WE'RE GONNA VOTE.
NOW.
THAT THE RULES RIGHT DID YOU GET
THROUGH THE ROLL CALL
[inaudible]
OKAY.
SOCIAL WE FINISH THIS ROLL CALL
AND THEN PUT IT ON A CALL.
THAT'S IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE
TRYING [inaudible]
YEAH.
YOU WERE GOING TO WITHDRAW THE
MOTION COLLEGE ICE TEA FOR THAT
AND THEN WILL -- A DOCTOR ROLES
IN IN WILL FAIR ENOUGH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH LAST YEAR I
VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME
[inaudible]
YEAH.
ALL THE GOOD DOCTOR [inaudible]
RIGHT [inaudible]
SENATOR.
SENATOR NELSON ANY.
I THINK -- WELCOME [inaudible]
THE NUMBER.
THIS.
BILL ADDRESSES I THINK A A GROUP
OF STATE EMPLOYEES ARE KIND OF
THE FORGOTTEN SOULS.
THE EXCLUDED STATE EMPLOYEES
[inaudible]
IF THEY HAVE A GRIEVANCE.
THERE'S A PROCESS.
BUT IN PRACTICE ALMOST ALL THOSE
GRIEVANCES. FOR THE NIGHT
[inaudible]
THE RECORDS.
IS TO THE COURT.
THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD.
THAT'S TIME CONSUMING
[inaudible]
THAT'S COSTLY.
AND THEREFORE DISCOURAGES.
FROM DOING THAT.
WHICH ONLY HAPPENS FURTHER.
THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE USE.
WHAT I CALL SOMEONE FORGOTTEN
EMPLOYEES HAVE GOT TO INDOOR?
THIS BILL WILL.
OPTIMIZE AND STREAMLINE.
THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS.
ALLOWING EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES TO
REQUEST ARBITRATION.
AFTER THEY EXHAUST THE NORMAL
[inaudible]
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.
THERE THEN WOULD BE ACTIVATED
AND THE GOOD [inaudible]
ASK.
FOR THEN THE ARBITRATION.
THERE'S AN INCENTIVE IN THIS.
UTILIZING THE LOSER PAY MODEL.
THAT WOULD HELP.
FILTER A FRIVOLOUS [inaudible]
POINT.
IT INCENTIVIZE GROUPS
[inaudible]
THE SHUTTLE.
AMONG THE REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
WHO.
HAVE THE ABILITY NOW.
THERE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY. TO
REQUEST ARBITRATION.
WE'VE TAKEN SOME.
MINOR BUT SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL
CHANGES.
CONFIRMING CONFORMING TO THE H.
R. AGREEMENT THE ARBITRATION
PROCESS [inaudible]
IT WILL.
I THINK GIVE THESE [inaudible]
NEGLECTED OR NOT IS.
RESPECTED EMPLOYEES A BETTER
OPPORTUNITY [inaudible] TO
ANTICIPATE.
SOME COMPLETION WITHOUT COSTLY
[inaudible]
PROCEDURE [inaudible]
AND LITIGATION.
THEN AGAIN I SUBMIT.
THEY ARE KIND OF THE FORGOTTEN
SEWERS [inaudible]
STATE GOVERNMENT.
THE EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES.
I HAVE WITH ME.
THIS DRUG AND SALAS WHO'S THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL. SIX SUPERVISORS
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING THESE
INDIVIDUALS.
AND MISTER JOHN WELL.
THAT IS THE OPEN.
SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL PLEASE
FEEL FREE AND HI MY NAME IS
ARKANSAS AS I AM THE STATE
PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA.
SUPER ORGANIZATIONS VICE
ORGANIZATION.
NOW FULLY SUPPORTING SPONSOR OF
THIS US SENATE BILL -- ONE
SEVENTY NINE I BELIEVE IN MY
EXPERIENCES AS AN EXCLUDED PLOY
THAT THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS HAS
BEEN VERY INEFFECTIVE -- OUT OF
OF THE FOUR THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED SUPERVISORS THAT BELONG
TO ORGANIZATION ABOUT 99% OF
THEM.
I REPEAT 99% OF THEM ARE DENIED
BECAUSE THE STATE HAS ABILITY TO
DENY THIS PROCESS [inaudible]
IT IS.
IT AFFECTS MANY SUPERVISORS ON
THE LINE AND THEIR ABILITY TO GO
AHEAD AND BRING ACROSS --
GRIEVING BOTH READABLE ISSUE
THAT THEY HAVE IN THE WORK FORCE.
AND WITH THIS SPONSORED BILL
WILL GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY
KNOW THAT THEIR GRIEVANCE WOULD
BE SOLVED.
AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL REMEDIES.
I CAN A TO I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT
OR I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM CCS
SO ORGANIZATION WE SPENT OVER A
MILLION DOLLARS.
IN LITIGATION COSTS BECAUSE THE
GRIEVANCE PROCESS HAS BEEN
INEFFECTIVE.
SO CAN I I THANK YOU AND I ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
JOHN LEVEL ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS.
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY POLICE
CHIEFS.
IN THE LA COUNTY PROFESSIONAL
PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION WERE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL THE
OTHER GROUPS WHO I JUST
REFERENCED.
ALLIN THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO
PROVIDE FOR BINDING ARBITRATION
OF GRIEVANCES FOR EXCLUDED
EMPLOYEES.
IT'S NOT ONLY A REFLECTION OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
BUT IT MAKES ORGANIZATIONAL
SENSE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE
OF THE CURRENT LACK OF BINDING
ARBITRATION FOR EXCLUDED
EMPLOYEES.
IS THAT IT'S A DIS INCENTIVE.
FOR A QUALIFIED EXCEPTIONAL
PEOPLE TO PROMOTE.
SOMEONE COMES TO YOU AND SAYS
YOU KNOW -- G. DOCTOR PAN WERE
REALLY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT
YOU'VE BEEN DOING WE WANT YOU TO
TAKE AN EXAM TO PROMOTE.
AND THEN DOCTOR PANTS AS WELL
OKAY THAT'S INTERESTING -- MAKE
A LITTLE MORE MONEY.
BUT I'LL LOSE MY BINDING
ARBITRATION RIGHTS IN ANOTHER
SUBJECT MATTER AREAS ALL LOSE
CERTAIN SHIFT ASSIGNMENT RIGHTS.
IN THE AND IT CREATES A
DYSFUNCTIONAL DISINCENTIVE THIS
IS A GOOD SENSE BILL AND WE
COMMANDED TO YOU WE COMMEND THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
OTHER SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL.
MANY I'M PAUL KIRBY HALF THE
CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISION
ORGANIZATION.
CAN STONE STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT -- AND TED TOP AND IS
UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY BUT HE
ASKED THAT I INDICATES THE THAT
THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
STATE SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL.
AFFORD COULD NOT REPRESENTING
THE HOSPITAL POLICE.
OF THE DRIVE VOTE.
ANY IN OPPOSITION.
QUESTIONS FROM OUR MEMBERS.
BUT I GUESS WE'RE NOT REALLY
BUILDING.
SENATOR WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
THEN WILL TAKE A ROLE YEAH.
LET'S GET IT ON THE ROLE AND I
HAVE TO DO I DO WITH QUESTION IF
I MAY I'M SORRY ME AND MY
APOLOGIES -- I I BELIEVE I HAVE
ALREADY. FOR THIS BUT I I DID
HAVE A QUESTION -- IT CERTAINLY
SOUNDS GOOD TO GIVE THE UNION
THAT OPTION BUT BUT WHAT IF THE
EMPLOYEE DOESN'T WANT TO GO TO
ARBITRATION HOW DO YOU ADDRESS
THAT PROBLEM.
WELL OUR JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE
EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE UP OUR
MEMBERSHIP AND IF YOU HAVE AN
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE WHO SAYS
WELL.
GEE I DON'T WANNA TAKE I'LL
SETTLE FOR WHATEVER HAPPENS AND
I WON'T GO FORWARD.
THE END OF THE SMART UNION
PARTICULARLY NOW IN THE JANICE
AGE IS GOING TO RESPOND TO THE
EMPLOYEES CONCERT.
ALRIGHT SO THIRD THAT IS A I
MEAN FOR WHATEVER REASON AND I
MEAN I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY THAT
WOULD HAPPEN BUT BUT WE LIVE IN
INTERESTING TIMES.
NO THAT'S TRUE THAT THAT'S TRUE
THAT'S AND ACTUALLY AN ANCIENT
CHINESE CURSE PEOPLE WILL SAY BR
MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING
TIMES.
WELL I THINK WE MAY BE THERE BUT
AT ANY RATE -- THANK YOU FOR
THAT ANSWER YES FROM THE OKAY
SENATOR WELL HEALTH COSTS
THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT LONG
PLAGUED [inaudible]
GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF
COMPACTION.
IT'S A FACTOR HERE.
AS REPRESENTED RICE.
THEN IT BECOMES EVEN LESS AN
INCENTIVE FOR INDIVIDUALS WANT
TO RISE UP AND BECOME AN TO THE
MANAGER LEVEL.
AND IT'S OFTEN BEEN THE CASE
WITHIN AGENCIES THAT THIS
HAPPENS THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL
[inaudible]
SOLUTION.
THE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
I WOULD URGE AND I WILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WHEN.
WE ADOPT THE ROLES WE WILL VOTE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH [inaudible]
SENATOR LEYVA [inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
I DON'T [inaudible]
YEAH.
LEARN.
TO PLAY WITH MAY BE.
REALITIES AND WHEN HE GETS HERE
WHEN HE GETS HERE.
WHAT'S THE TOP THE RULES AND
MUCH OF WHAT.
WE'VE DONE.
YEAH AND IN THAT WAY IF ANYBODY
HAS TO LEAVE.
A LOT OF ROLES ARE YOU EVEN
[inaudible]
NOTHING [inaudible]
GET.
YEAH YEAH WE AT SEC.
IS.
SOMEONE.
WANTS TO DON'T.
SENATOR LEYVA ARE YOU.
READY RIGHT.
THANK YOU YOU'RE WELCOME THANK
YOU MISTER VICE CHAIR GOOD
MORNING MEMBERS.
I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
ON THIS BILL.
AND STATE THAT I AM COMMITTED TO
WORKING ON THE SUGGESTED
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS IN SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS SHOULD THIS BILL
GET OUT TODAY.
SB TWO SIXTY SIX PROTECTS THE
PROMISED AND PAID FOR RETIREMENT
BENEFITS OF CALPERS MEMBERS.
BY MAKING SURE THE ANY
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED
COMPENSATION COUNTED TOWARDS
RETIREMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN FROM
RETIREE BECAUSE OF INCORRECTLY
REPORTED INFORMATION BY THEIR
EMPLOYERS.
THIS MAJOR RESPONSE TO CASES IN
WHICH THE COMPENSATION
INFORMATION OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES
WAS INCORRECTLY REPORTED TO
CALPERS BY THEIR EMPLOYERS.
IN THESE INSTANCES THE RETIRED
EMPLOYEES ARE FORCED TO PAY BACK
THE TOTAL OVER PAID AMOUNT AND
SUFFER PERMANENT REDUCTIONS TO
THEIR PENSIONS.
MANY RETIREES RELY ON FIXED
INCOMES I WOULD SAY MOST
RETIREES RELY ON FIXED INCOMES.
AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
EXPERIENCE UNEXPECTED CUTS TO
THEIR BENEFITS BECAUSE THE
REPORTING ERRORS.
NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.
SB TWO SIXTY SIX GIVER TECH
GIVES RETIREES PEACE OF MIND
FROM BEING FORCED TO PAY BACK
MONEY OR HAVE REDUCTIONS IN THE
PENSIONS BECAUSE OF ACCOUNTING
OR REPORTING ERRORS.
BY THEIR EMPLOYER SB TWO SIXTY
SIX COME HEALTH CALPERS AND
EMPLOYERS TO WORK TOGETHER TO
KEEP RETIREES HOLE AND PREVENT
THESE INSTANCES FROM EVER
HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'M COMMITTED TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THIS COMMITTEE
CALPERS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE
WITH ME TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT IT'S
CHRISTY BELMONT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA FRACTIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS.
WHO ARE SPONSORS OF SB?
TWO SIXTY SIX AND FRANKLY.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE CHRISTY BOMB ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS PLEASED TO BE.
SPONSORS OF THIS MEASURE -- WE
WERE IN FOR THE FIRST COMMITTEE
BEFORE THIS BECAME A JOINT
COMMITTEES THE UNDER A CHAIRMAN
PAN AND A WE APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT LAST YEAR.
WE GOT A GOVERNOR VETO WHICH WE
HAVE ADDRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE
SUGGESTS THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR ENGAGEMENT ABOUT WHAT
APPEARS AN ANIMAL YOU AND ALSO
SUGGESTS THAT -- PURRS CAN
PERIODICALLY PUBLISH INFORMATION
ABOUT NUMBER WITH YOU LANGUAGE
THEY'VE APPROVED STREAMLINE THAT
PROCESS -- AND THEN I WOULD JUST
EMPHASIZE THAT THESE MEMBERS WHO
ARE THESE RETIREES I SHOULD SAY
WHO ARE.
BEING ASKED TO PAY BACK -- THIS
MONEY THEY PAID FOR THIS BENEFIT
HAS TO THEIR EMPLOYERS AND IT
WAS THE SUBJECT OF A BARGAINING
AGREEMENT.
SO FOR ALL THESE REASONS WE ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT AGAIN
[inaudible]
WHOSE DISH.
SURE MEMBERS RAINY PERRY ON
BEHALF OF PORAC AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION
THAT -- IT REMINDED COMMITTEES
RETIRED MEMBERS WHO NOT ONLY
THROUGH FOR NO FAULT OF THEIR
OWN BUT AS AS CHRIS ABOUT MIGHT
SAID -- PAID THE BENEFIT BARGAIN
THE BENEFIT AND NOW WE ASK HIM
MANY TIMES A LUMP SUM PAYMENT
SET FINANCIALLY -- IMPACT THEM
SO WE JUST ASK FOR SUPPORT.
HI ANY ADDITIONAL IN SUPPORT
MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS CHAI
SUPPRESS IT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION --
SUPPORT THIS BILL FOR THE
AFOREMENTIONED AND STATEMENT AND
IT AFFECTS CLASSIFY SCHOOL IS
ALSO NOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
COLLEGES THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
PERSONAGE STEIGER WITH
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION ALSO
IN SUPPORT.
MR MEMBERS TERRY BRENNAN BEHALF
OF S. YEAH YOU CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT.
SHERMAN ALBERTO TRICKLE MATHIS
TAKE COLLISION PREVENTION
ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT.
MORNING RAIN CHAMBER WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
ALSO IN SUPPORT.
MORNING PJ WEB WITH THE LOS
ANGELES SCHOOL POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
ANY IN OPPOSITION.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE STILL GIVENS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL -- THIS
BILL IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BILL
THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR LAST YEAR --
WHEN IS THAT COMING TO TO THIS
COMMITTEE IT WOULD HAVE HAD
CALPERS CONTINUE TO MAKE
PAYMENTS TO RETIREES?
AND EMPLOYERS CONTINUE TO MAKE
PAYMENTS TO CALPERS -- THIS BILL
IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN
THAT IT HAS -- EMPLOYERS MAKING
PAYMENTS DIRECTLY -- TO RETIREES --
THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES THE AS THE SENATOR
POINTED OUT -- RETIREES WHO
HAVING THEIR THEIR PAYMENTS CUT
FROM CALPERS.
IS INCREDIBLY UNFORTUNATE THESE
WERE THEY WERE RECEIVING
BENEFITS THAT WERE BARGAINED
BETWEEN THE BARGAINING UNITS IN
THE EMPLOYERS -- EVERYONE WAS IN
AGREEMENT -- EVERYONE WAS MAKING
THEIR PAYMENTS TO CALPERS IN
THESE RETIREES WERE RECEIVING
THAT BENEFIT -- THEN AFTER SOME
SOMETIME CALPERS DETERMINED THAT
THE BENEFITS THAT WERE BARGAINED
FOR AND AGREED -- TO AND PAY FOR
TO CALPERS WERE UNLAWFUL -- AND
THEY THEN CALPERS IS REQUIRED TO
GO BACK AND SEE KID'S -- THOSE
UNLAWFUL PAYMENTS THAT WENT TO
THE RETIREES -- THE WITH THE WAY
THIS WORKS IS -- AFTER THE
EMPLOYERS -- COME TO AN
AGREEMENT THE WITH THE
BARGAINING UNIT THEY SUBMIT
THEIR CONTRACT TO CALPERS --
THERE IS THE EMPLOYER START
PAYING THEIR SHARE.
THE EMPLOYEES ARE PAYING THEIR
SHARE -- THEN WHEN THEY RETIRED
CALPERS PAYS THE EMPLOYEES THE
RETIREE.
BOTH THE EMPLOYEES HERE -- THAT
THEY PAID AND AS WELL AS THE
EMPLOYER SHARE.
THEN WITH THIS BILL THIS WOULD
HAVE THE EMPLOYERS.
HEY CALPERS FOR THE THE BENEFIT
THEY'VE BEEN RECEIVED -- BY THE
RETIREE. FOR NOT ONLY THE
EMPLOYER'S SHARE AGAIN.
BUT THE RETIREES SHARE.
AS WELL.
AND THEN -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO
DIRECTLY CONTINUE TO PAY THE
RETIREE.
A D. UNLAWFUL BENEFIT.
AND THIS IS WHERE.
OUR AGENCIES -- FOUND THAT IT'S
A GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO
CONTINUE TO DIRECTLY PAY.
A RETIREE.
A A. B. AND UNLAWFUL BENEFITS --
AND FOR FOR THOSE REASONS WE'RE
OPPOSED -- CALPERS IS ALREADY
DETERMINED THAT THEY CAN'T PAY
THIS CONTINUED PAY THIS BENEFIT
BECAUSE IT IS UNLAWFUL.
AND YET THIS BILL WOULD.
HAVE EMPLOYERS TO PAY THEIR
SHARE AGAIN AND THEN CONTINUE TO
PAY.
EMPLOYEES -- THIS PUTS 1100%.
OF THE COST FOR AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN A BARGAINING UNIT AT AN
EMPLOYER ON THE EMPLOYER. FOR
THOSE REASONS WERE POST.
SURE MEMBERS DATE HUTCHINGS WITH
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
LIE MY COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUE
FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION -- THAT ALSO TAKE --
YOU KNOW THERE'S SOME -- ISSUE
WITH THE FACT THAT -- THE THE
REPORTED ABOUT WAS MADE ON THE
AIR WHERE I'M AS MISTER GIVENS
STATED -- THESE WERE AGREEMENTS
ARE MADE BY THE EMPLOYER AND THE
EMPLOYEE I'M CALPERS REVIEWS
THOSE AGREEMENTS AND MAKES THE
DETERMINATION OF THOSE PENSION
AT THOSE -- THAT CONVERSATIONS
PENSION OR NOT -- THEN THEM.
THEN GOING BACK IN MAKING A
DETERMINATION LATER SAYING THEY
WERE NO LONGER PENSIONABLE --
DOESN'T SO MUCH FOR THE ONUS ON
THE EMPLOYERS.
CAN SEE -- WHO SIGNED OFF ON THE
AGREEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND
SO WE ARE ORGANIZATIONS DID NOT
TAKE A POSITION ON THE MEASURE
WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRODUCED
LAST YEAR -- WE VOICE OUR
CONCERNS FOR THE MEASURE ONCE OF
HIS AMENDED AND AND AND AUGUST --
TO TO PUT THE EMPLOYER ON THE
HOOK FOR FOR THAT THAT BENEFIT --
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
THE COMMITTEE MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER -- IS IS TAKING A LOOK
AT FROM FROM A PROSPECTIVE BASIS
ONE OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES
THAT WE CAN DO ON THE FRONT TEND
TO ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT
HAPPEN AGAIN -- BUT WITH REGARDS
TO THE RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY
OF THIS MEASURE -- WE CERTAINLY
HAVE OUR CONCERNS AS OUTLINED BY
MISTER GIVENS -- SO WITH THAT
THE LADY CITIES AS OPPOSED
MEASURE THANK YOU -- ANY OTHER
AND OPPOSITION.
JOSH DUGGAR WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
ALSO IN OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASONS STATED.
QUESTION FOR MEMBERS.
I'M JUST WONDERING -- THIS IS
NOT THE FAULT OF THE EMPLOYEE --
YOU DON'T WANT TO THE EMPLOYER
TO TO HAVE TO PAY FOR TO TO JUST
FOR THAT.
WHO WHO WHO SUPPOSED TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY IMPAIR THE BURDEN?
THAT'S WHAT CONFUSES ME HI.
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE THE
EMPLOYEE IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT --
THE EGG.
YOU KNOW THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT
TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH IT.
MAY BE THEIR FAULT AND COULD YOU
ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PUTTING
THIS BURDEN ON THE EMPLOYEE SO
THE QUESTION BECOMES WHO WE PUT
IT ON I WOULD SAY THAT I
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU
SENATOR JACKSON.
THIS IS THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE
EMPLOYEE YOU WORK TWENTY FIVE
THIRTY THIRTY FIVE FORTY YEARS
YOU GO IN TO FIND OUT WHAT YOUR
PENSION IS GOING TO BE.
SOMEONE NOT YOURSELF YOU DON'T
EVEN KNOW THE PENSION
CALCULATION AS A ORKER SOMEONE
CALCULATE YOUR PENSION YOU'RE
TOLD YOU'RE GOING TO RECEIVE X.
AMOUNT OF DOLLARS -- PER MONTH
FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE FOR
WHATEVER THE TIME FRAME IS.
AND THEN COME TO FIND OUT A YEAR
TWO YEARS TEN YEARS LATER IT'S
DISCOVERED THAT WHOEVER
CALCULATED IT.
MISCALCULATED IT AND NOW THE
EMPLOYING SUPPOSED TO PAY THAT
MONEY BACK AND THAT IS THROUGH
NO FAULT OF THE EMPLOYEE PEOPLE
MAKE LIFE DECISIONS ON WHAT
THEY'RE TOLD.
OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT IT WAS A
MISTAKE BUT I COULDN'T AGREE
WITH YOU MORE THE EMPLOYEE
SHOULD NOT BE ON THE HOOK AND I
KNOW THE EMPLOYER DOESN'T LIKE
THAT IDEA.
THAT THEY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK
BUT YOU'RE CORRECT WHO ELSE
SHOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE
MONEY.
LET'S MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT
SO THE SYSTEM WELL THAT'S WHAT
I'M THINKING WHO WHO HAS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING IT
RIGHT.
I MEAN I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE
PROBABLY INSTANCES WHERE
EMPLOYEES ARE PAID LESS THAN THE
WHAT THEY'RE ENTITLED.
TO BECAUSE WE ALL I MEAN I LOOK
AT SOCIAL SECURITY THEY TELL YOU
WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET.
AND YOU BASICALLY SAY OKAY -- IF
THAT'S WHAT I GET THAT'S WHAT I
GET AND YOU ASSUME THERE RIGHT
WHERE DO YOU GO TO FIND OUT TO
GET THAT SECOND OPINION.
I MEAN SHOULD WE BE EXPECTING
EMPLOYEES TO GET A SECOND
OPINION I DON'T THINK SO BUT BUT
WHAT YOU KNOW.
IF I MAY OF SENATOR.
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE RIGHT ON
POINT I MEAN I DID HEAR.
THAT IT'S MORE MAKING THIS UNDER
PERCENT THE OBLIGATION OF THE
EMPLOYER AND THAT'S
APPROPRIATELY SO THE EMPLOYER
BARGAIN THIS FORM OF DEFERRED
COMPENSATION FOR THIS GROUP OF
EMPLOYEES.
AND SO WHEN IT'S DETERMINED THAT
IT'S DISALLOWED I'M NOT SURE WHY
THIS LANDS ON THE EMPLOYER BUT
THE EMPLOYER DOES HAVE THE
OBLIGATION TO ACCURATELY REPORT.
WHAT IS PENSION WILL
COMPENSATION TO THE SYSTEM?
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHO
DECIDES WHAT IS THAT A
PENSIONABLE AMOUNT TOWARD WHERE
DO WE GO TO GET THAT ACCURATE
INFORMATION PERHAPS.
WE SHOULD PUT THE ONUS ON THEM I
I BELIEVE CALPERS ALCULATES THE
RETIREMENT AMOUNT.
ALSO SOMEONE FROM CALPERS HERE
WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
IF I MAY THE PREVIOUS POINT -- I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THIS BILL DOES PARTICULARLY WELL
IS IT ASK CALPERS TO DO A REVIEW
A REVIEW OF THE THE PROPOSED
CHANGES IN FUTURE CONTRACTS --
ADD TO TO PREVENT THIS FROM
HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE --
HOWEVER AS FAR AS THE THE OWNERS
OF OF PUTTING THIS ON THE WHOSE
RESPONSIBILITY IT IS -- THIS
THIS DOES PUT THIS OTHER PERSON
ON EMPLOYER RIGHT NOW CALPERS
HAS THE ABILITY.
AND HAS IN THE PAST WAVE TO
THEIR THEIR LOVE SOME OF THE THE
THE AMOUNT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE -- THEY'VE
THEY'VE SENT TO A BILL ASKING
FOR BACK AND THEY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO WAIVE THAT AMOUNT
THEY'VE DONE SO IN THE PAST
HOWEVER UNDER THIS BILL.
IT DOES NOT GRANT CALPERS THAT
AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THAT PORTION
IT IT DOES SAY THE EMPLOYER MUST
PAY IT -- I THINK THAT THEY'RE
THEY'RE THEY'RE THAT.
THIS PUTS THE ONUS -- 1100% ON
THE EMPLOYER WHOSE
RESPONSIBILITY IT IS IT IS IT --
YEAH I THINK THAT IS NEAR THE
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION WE'VE WE
HAD AN AGREEMENT THE THE
EMPLOYERS CREATED THIS BENEFIT --
WENT TO CALPERS AS A AS A WAY TO
TRY PROVIDE A BENEFIT TO AN
EMPLOYEE -- THEY THEY BARGAIN TO
THIS THEY SAT DOWN THE PARKING
UNIT THEY CAME TO AGREEMENT THAT
THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO
DO.
BOTH THE BARGAINING UNIT AND THE
EMPLOYER WERE WRONG AND WHAT
THEY WHAT THEY AGREED TO
INSTABILITY CALPERS AND THEY
CAME TO AN UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT.
IS IT A 100% THE EMPLOYERS FROM --
RESPONSIBILITY THAT POINT NOW.
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT IT
IS THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A
MISTAKE IS UNLAWFUL I KNOW WHERE
YOU'RE TRYING TO GO WITH THIS
THAT BECAUSE IT ISN'T EXACTLY
WHAT YOU BARGAINED FOR THAT
PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE.
BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE A MISTAKE
MY ISSUE IS AND THE POINT OF
THIS BILL IS THE EMPLOYEE THE
WORKER WHO PUT IN ALL THEIR TIME
DID EVERYTHING THEY WERE
SUPPOSED TO DO SHOULD NOT SUFFER
THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S MISTAKE.
SO IS THERE A WAY I MEAN WE
DON'T WANT THE MISTAKE IN THE
FIRST PLACE -- SO IS THERE SOME
WAY WE COULD -- TIGHTNESS OPTED
TO PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY
SHOULDN'T BE ON THE EMPLOYEE TO
RUN AROUND TRYING TO GET THAT TO
FIND AN ACTUARY WHO CAN DECIDE
THIS I MEAN.
EITHERCALPERS OR THE EMPLOYER
IT SEEMED TO ME SHOULD BE THE
ONES WHO ARE SORT OF
GUARANTEEING THE ACCURACY OF THE
INFORMATION.
SO MAYBE THE QUESTIONS WERE --
IS IT IS IT THE IT IS A CALPERS
THAT THAT MESSED UP HERE IF YOU
WILL OR IS THERE SOME WAY TO I
MEAN I WISH THEY WERE HERE SO WE
COULD GET COULD KIND OF PUT THEM
IN THE HOT SEAT A LITTLE BIT IS
THERE'S ARE YOU HERE.
FROM CALIFORNIA I'M WITH THE
LEAGUE IS IT IS JUST -- TO TO
THE POINT THE POINT IS IS THAT
WHEN WE SIT WHEN OUR UNIT
BARGAINING UNITS IN THIS IN THE
EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER IN
MUTUALLY AGREED TO NAME A FEW
THAT YOU SUBMIT THAT THAT
CONTRACT YOU CALPERS FOR THEIR
APPROVAL FOR RETIREMENT SERVICES
ABOUT BENEFIT.
SO DEMI DENTURE QUESTION UNITS
WOULD BE ON THE AGENCY TO VERIFY.
IF THOSE AT THAT THEY'VE WHAT
HAS BEEN AGREED TO WAS LAWFUL.
AND IS ACTUALLY -- DEFERRED
COMPENSATION OR UNLOCK OR YEAH
CAN WE DON'T USE LAWFUL OF TELL
YOU WHY.
REALLY DISTURBS ME -- IT IMPLIES
THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS DOING
SOMETHING UNLAWFUL EMPLOYEES TO
ACCEPTING THE THE NUMBERS THAT
ARE BEING PROVIDED TO THE
EMPLOYEE FROM WHICH THEY WILL
THEN.
THE EITHER RECEIVER NOT RECEIVE
A RETIREMENT BENEFIT I I DON'T
KNOW UNLAWFUL IS I JUST THINK IT
CAST.
AN INAPPROPRIATE PAUL ON THE
EMPLOYEE THE EMPLOYEE IS
ACCEPTING WHATEVER IT IS THAT
THE NUMBER IS THAT THEY'VE BEEN
GIVEN.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING AND AND
IF SO WHO DO WE WHO SHOULD TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY LAWFULLY OR
UNLAWFULLY IS NOT THE ISSUE IT'S
THE NUMBERS WRONG.
THE THE THE AMOUNT IS ARGUABLY
TOO MUCH BUT I WILL BET YOU
THERE INSTANCES WHERE THE WHERE
THE NUMBERS TOO LITTLE.
HOW DO WE ASSURE THAT THE
NUMBERS CORRECT THAT'S WHAT I'D
LIKE TO SEE US GET TO SENATOR
JACKSON I WOULD SAY?
I THINK MISTAKES WILL ALWAYS BE
MADE UNFORTUNATELY I THINK WE
CAN ALWAYS TIGHTEN THINGS UP I
AM HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
WITH CALPERS.
AND FIND OUT HOW THIS HAPPENED
WHAT NOT MAKE SURE THEIR FOLKS
ARE TRAINED BUT I I AGREE I
DON'T LIKE HEARING HAT IT'S
UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT AGAIN.
IT IT CASTS A SHADOW ON THE
EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NOTHING WRONG
EXCEPT WORK AND DO WHAT THEY
WERE TOLD TO DO.
THEY WERE GIVEN THIS BENEFIT AND
NOW THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO IT
BECAUSE IT WAS MISCALCULATED OR
NOT ENTITLED TO WHAT THEY WERE
GIVEN SO I WILL SPEAK TO CALPERS
AND SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT BUT I
WOULD AGREE WITH YOU 1100%.
THAT I'M SURE WELL PEOPLE BEEN
OVERPAID PEOPLE BEEN UNDERPAID
AND THE EMPLOYERS ARE RUNNING
OUT AND SAYING TO THEM GOSH WE
OWE YOU MORE MONEY.
CANDIDLY THEY DON'T KNOW BUT
STILL.
A CONSIDER MAYBE JUST ONE MORE
COMMENT -- TO CLOSE ON THAT
CERTAINLY ISN'T THESE OPTIONS
ARE AVAILABLE NOW.
BUT FOR HIS ARRIVAL TO RULES
THESE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO
EMPLOYERS NOW THEY DON'T AVAIL
COMES OF IT SO I THINK WHAT THIS
BILL WILL DO.
IS FLIP THE INCENTIVES.
THANK YOU BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IF
IT IS AGREED TO AN AMMO YOU.
STERN DETERMINED LATER TO BE
UNLAWFUL.
SIMPLER GOES.
CAUSING THE EMPLOYEE GETS THE
LETTER THE RETIREES SO I THINK
THIS IS JUST ABOUT.
PUTTING THE RIGHT INCENTIVES IN
THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THE PARTIES
TO COME TO CALPERS AND AND CHECK
OFF THEIR THEIR BARGAIN AND WILL
USE TO MAKE SURE NO ONE GETS PUT
IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
WITH THAT MISTER CHAIR WELCOME I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
WHILE I WAS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- AND
ASSEMBLY THAT THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD --
I'D SAY HEARD OF A VERSION OF
THIS BILL IS -- AND HERS -- LAST
YEAR.
AND I I HAVE TO AGREE WITH WHAT
YOU SAID WHAT SIR JACKSON SAID
IT SHOULD NOT FALL ON THE
EMPLOYEE THIS IS THE THE
EMPLOYEE ACTED THAT FAITH.
AND FACT -- THE PARTICULAR CASE
ALTHOUGH I THINK THIS BILL PLIES
MORE BROADLY THAN ANY PARTICULAR
CASE -- EVEN CHECKED -- AND SO
PEOPLE MAKE PLANS STATE.
AT SO IT'S BOTH HOW MUCH AGAIN
RETIREMENT BECAUSE ACTUALLY WHAT
WE'RE SAYING IS NOT TO BE CLOSE
NOT ONLY DO IT IF THAT WAS THE
RESULT CLUB BACK THE MONEY IS
ALSO THE LOWER THE OVERALL
RETIREMENT RIGHT SO I MEAN DOES
A DOUBLE HIT IT WAS NOT JUST.
ONE HIT.
AND AND SO WHEN THE VOICE ACTING
IN GOOD FAITH -- THEN THEY
SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE
PENALIZED I THINK WE ALSO NEED
TO THINK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PART RIGHT
SO.
THE EMPLOYEE THROUGH THE
BARGAINING UNIT HAS A
RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR EMPLOYER
AND THEIR CERTAIN AGREEMENTS OR
PROMISES WERE MADE.
RIGHT AND THEN THE EMPLOYER THE
CITY COUNTY WHATEVER HAS
RELATIONSHIPS WITH HERS TO
HANDLE THEIR RETIREMENT AND WHAT.
WHAT FITS AND WHAT DOESN'T FIT
IN THERE?
AND SO I THINK THAT -- AND THE
OTHER PART IS OF COURSE PERS AB
AS AN ENTITY AND I KNOW THEY'RE
NOT HERE -- BUT AND I'M NOT GO
STRAIGHT SPEAK FOR THEM IN ANY
WAY -- BUT CERTAINLY WE WANT TO
BE SURE THAT THAT RETIREMENT
FUND IS IS STABLE SO NOW WE HAVE
TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT THEY'RE
NOT HAVING TO SPEND MONEY THAT
IS INAPPROPRIATE.
SO BUT I THINK THAT WHERE THIS
NEEDS TO BE SETTLED IF THERE WAS
AN ERROR BY.
I WOULD SAY IS THAT OKAY WHO WHO
GOT THE MONEY IN THE END RIGHT
AND WHO GOT THE MONEY TO
REINVEST OR WHATEVER ELSE AND
HOW THAT MONEY GETS THE COUNTED --
FOR SO BUT IT SHOULDN'T
CERTAINLY SHOULD FALL ON THE
EMPLOYEE IT SHOULD BE SO THERE'S
AN ISSUE.
SINCE THE EMPLOYEE HAS
RELATIONSHIP ON PLAYER MAKES
SENSE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO SAY
OKAY YOU KNOW I HAVE TO PAY OUT
BUT IF EMPLOYER FEELS THAT PURRS
ACT IN THE WAY THAT.
THEY'RE LIKE WE PAID MONEY AND
WE NEED TO GET SOME MONEY BACK
TO FOR THAT CAN BE BETWEEN
EMPLOYER IN PERSON THAT'S RIGHT.
RIGHT BUT THOSE TWO OUT OF TO
GET OUT -- BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE
THE EMPLOYEE CAUGHT IN THE
MIDDLE.
IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES SO -- SO
WITH THAT I CERTAINLY -- AND
HAPPY TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT --
AND ACTUALLY -- IT HAS BEEN
MOVED I WILL MOVE THE BILL AS
WELL -- BUT THE I KNOW WILL HAVE
TO VOTE ON A FEW THINGS BEFORE
YOU ACTUALLY VOTE ON THIS.
THANK YOU CENTER.
THANK YOU THE MOVE WAS TALKING
ABOUT.
THANK YOU BEFORE WE DO TAKE THAT
MOTION I APPRECIATE THAT IF
YOU'LL BEAR WITH THE SAYS CENTER
LABOR FOR SECONDS WE ESTABLISH
THE COMMITTEE RULES -- WE DO
HAVE THE THE RULES AND NOT
STATED IN THE RULES BUT I JUST
WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT
MOVING FORWARD THIS COMMITTEE
WILL BE FILE ITEM BORDER.
NOT SIGN IN ORDER AS HIS
HISTORICALLY BEEN -- AND IS
THERE A MOTION ON THIS
DEFINITION.
THANK YOU SENATOR FAN AND WE
HAVE MOTION PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CENTERS HILL -- HI.
I'M AROUND [inaudible]
YEAH.
MORRELL AYE.
JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL -- MITCHELL
AYE PAN.
THE RULES ARE ESTABLISHED THANK
YOU VERY MUCH AND NOW WE WILL
MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX SP TWO SIXTY
SIX AND AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT
BEING HERE IN PART OF THE
CONVERSATION BUT I KNOW THERE
WAS.
A CONCERN THAT I HAD AS WELL
ABOUT THE THE REQUIREMENT AND
THAT -- THE DISH PLACES ON
CALPERS IN AND THAT ONE ASPECT
OF YOU KNOW I THINK THIS IS THE
BILL'S DRAFTED.
IT FILLS THE CORE MISSION THAT
WERE LOOKING FOR BUT AS IT MOVES
THROUGH THE PROCESS -- IT HAD
LIKE TO SEE THAT THAT
REQUIREMENT.
THAT PURRS REVIEWS ALL
COMPENSATION PROPOSALS I MEAN I
THINK THAT'S A CHALLENGE FOR
THEM -- EITHER YEAH THAT'D BE
SHARPLY CURTAILED IN SOME WAY OR
OR REMOVED ALTOGETHER I JUST I
DON'T WANNA PLAY SHOULD MORE
BURDENS ON THEM -- IF WE GET THE
THE RESULTS THEY WERE LOOKING
FOR IN THIS BILL WHICH I THINK
IS THE GOAL AT THE END SO --
WITH THAT WE DO HAVE A MOTION
FROM THE CENTER PANEL -- WHICH
LIKE TO CLOSE.
I THINK EVERYONE FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION IN JUST RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR NAY VOTE GOOD THANK YOU --
THE SYSTEM PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS HILL BY HILL AYE
MORRELL.
JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL.
MITCHELL AYE PAN. FOR THE BILL
IS UP THE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
SIR THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
THINKING MEMBERS TO HAVE A FULL.
EVEN SO IT IS UP.
HERE.
IN A SENATOR MORLOCK.
WE ARE INSIDE IN ORDER. FOR
TODAY YOU DID SIGN IN AND YOU
ARE ACTUALLY SENATOR HUESO YOU
WILL BE AFTER -- AFTER SENATOR
MORE LOCK THAT HAVE BEEN.
BUSY SIGNED IN FIRST
[inaudible]
THOSE LABELED -- MORE MORE.
THERE'S A FEW BLOCKS RIGHT --
SENATOR MORE LIKE WE WANT.
TO YOU KNOW WHAT WE WE SHOULD DO
WELL EVERYONE IS HERE I DON'T
KNOW IF PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO THAT
WE WOULD NOT VOTED ON ANYTHING
ABOUT ANYTHING IS.
SO LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER TWO
SB ONE SEVENTY ONE BY SENATOR
JACKSON.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY -- AS
SENATOR MITCHELL -- PLEASE CALL
TH ROLL THE MOTION IS TO PASS
TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HILL HI.
I'M AROUND.
NO JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL
[inaudible]
MITCHELL. FOUR VOTES THAT THE
BILL IS OUT MOVING TO SENATOR IN
NIELSEN THAT'S BE ONE SEVENTY
NINE ITEM NUMBER THREE IS THERE
A MOTION.
OF A MOTION FROM -- SENATOR PAN.
SENATOR NIELSEN ITEM NUMBER
THREE PLEASE CALL THE ROLL THE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CENTER HILL BY HILL
AYE MORALE.
I JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL.
AYE MITCHELL AYE PAN.
HI. FIVE VOTES THE BILL IS OUT
AS WELL WILL MOVE -- TO ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SB TWO TWENTY NINE
SENATOR YOUR PATIENCE -- WE ARE
AS BE ONE EIGHTY FOR FREE FOR
SIX THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THANK
YOU COLLEAGUES -- SP ONE EIGHTY
FOUR IS IDENTICAL TO SB SIX
FIFTY SIX FROM LAST YEAR JUST
LIKE KIND OF MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES WE ARE.
RE SUBMITTING BILLS FROM LAST
YEAR THAT WE THOUGHT WERE RIGHT
TO SEND HOPEFULLY HAVE A HAVE A
A BETTER RESULT AT THE END OF
THE EXERCISE IT DID RECEIVE
THIRTY NINE VOTES ON THE SENATE
FLOOR ON AUGUST THIRTY FIRST
WITH SENATOR BERRYHILL BEING
ABSENT.
BUT ON ON THE LAST DAY OF THE
ABILITY -- TO TO ADDRESS BILLS
ON SEPTEMBER THIRTIETH --
GOVERNOR BROWN TO VETO THE BILL
BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE BUT ON
A POLICY OPPOSED TO PENSION PLAN
MODIFICATIONS.
GOVERNOR BROWN WAS UNDER THE
IMPRESSION THAT THE PLAN
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED OR
IN THIS BILL.
WOULD RESULT IN RETROACTIVE
CHANGES THAT WERE LARGE AMOUNT
BUDGETED.
HE WAS CORRECT ON ONE OF HIS
THREE CONCERNS ONE IT WAS NOT
RETROACTIVE.
A COMPONENT OF THE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE PENSION REFORM ACT
PEPPER OF TWENTY THIRTEEN OF
WHICH HE AND I ACTUALLY
COLLABORATED ON THE RIGHT TRACK
OF COMPONENTS SO I WOULD NOT.
I WOULD NOT -- VIOLATE MY OWN
POLICIES. TO A IT WAS NOT LARGE
OUR OUR FIRST ACTUARIAL STUDY
WAS LARGE WHEN WE STARTED THIS
PROJECT.
WHAT WOULD BE ABLE TO TO YOUR
BILL LAST SESSION BUT AFTER
CAREFUL REVIEW THE DEFERRAL
COMPONENT OF THE BILL RESULTED
IN AN UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED
LIABILITY OF SOME TWENTY MILLION
OVER TWENTY YERS WITH INTEREST
IT WOULD BE ABOUT? TWO MILLION A
YEAR BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT A
MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR -- THIS
WAS A VERY SMALL COST TO GAIN AN
INCREDIBLE PERHAPS PRICELESS
MORALE BOOST FROM THE MORE THAN
FIFTEEN HUNDRED MEMBERS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY IN J. ARREST TO THAT
ARE SERVING ON THE BENCH.
BUT THREE HOWEVER HE WAS CORRECT
IN THAT THE TWENTY MILLION
DOLLARS WAS NOT BUDGETED. TO
MISTER CHAIR CONSEQUENTLY WE
HAVE.
SUCH A BUDGET REQUEST RUNNING
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE
PROGRESSION OF THIS BILL.
AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
I HAVE TWO WITNESSES WHO WILL RE
ACQUAINT YOU WITH THE NEED FOR
THE MINOR CHANGES TO THE CURRENT
CLIFF VESTING FORMULA IN THE
ORIGINAL TEAR ESTABLISHED.
IN NINETEEN NINETY FOUR TWENTY
FIVE YEARS LATER FLAWS HAVE
APPEARED THAT NEED CORRECTING
FLAWS THAT NO OTHER EMPLOYEE
GROUPS.
ARE SUBJECT TO IN THE STATE
WHILE THE ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA
JUDGES IS THE SPONSOR YESTERDAY
WE RECEIVED A LETTER.
OF SUPPORT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
JUDGES ASSOCIATION SO -- WE SEE
THAT IS A VERY GOOD SIGN AND
I'VE ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER.
DATED TODAY BUT WITH FIVE
HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN JUDGES THAT
HAVE SUPPORTED -- THAT ARE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL SO I'M
DELIGHTED TO HAVE JUDGES ALISON
LUIS ANY BOND CAMPUS TO TESTIFY
THANK YOU HIS MERE [inaudible]
A RUNNER.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR YOUR TIME
IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO BE ON
THE SIDE OF THE TABLE -- I JUST
WANT TO REMIND FOLKS OF WHAT YOU
ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS BILL
FROM LAST CYCLE A AND THAT IS IT
JUST SOFTENS THE BLOW OF ONE OF
THE HARSHEST ELEMENTS OF THE
CLIP FESTING.
FOUR CHAIR RESTS TO IN THAT
THERE IS NOT A SINGLE JUDGE THAT
WOULD GET A DOLLAR MORE IN THEIR
PENSION EIGHT DOLLARS EARLIER
UNDER THIS BILL IT JUST ALLOWS
THEM AFTER THEY HAVE THEIR
TWENTY YEARS OF SERVICE. TO STEP
OFF THE BENCH AND TAKE CARE OF
THEIR HEALTH AS A MEMBER OF THE
BENCH WHO WAS DIAGNOSED WITH
CANCER AT AGE.
FORTY FOUR I HAD THIS BILL IS
PERSONAL TO ME BECAUSE I AM ONE
OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAS TO SERVE
TWENTY FIVE YEARS IN ORDER TO
COLLECT A PENSION AT ALL.
UNDER TERRORIST TO AND IF I
SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH
MY HEALTH I WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO FOCUS ON THAT.
WITHOUT HAVING ANY NEGATIVE
EFFECTS FOR THE PENSION OF
FUNDING ITSELF WITH NO DOLLAR
FOR ANYONE EARLIER -- AND NO
DOLLAR MORE OF THAT WITH THAT I
ASK FOR YOUR IPHONE.
THANK YOU.
FOR GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING
I'M JUDGE OF ON CAMPUS FROM SAN
DIEGO COUNTY AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MUTUAL I'M A FORMER SENATE
FELLOW FROM THE CLASS OF
NINETEEN EIGHTY EIGHT EIGHTY
NINE I SERVED.
FOR SENATOR GEARY CAPEHART OF
SANTA BARBARA BACK THEN. FIVE
I'VE HEARD HE'S BEEN UP HERE A
LOT.
SOME OF YOU HAVE THE CHANCE TO
MEET THROUGH THE BENCHMARK
COALITION WHICH I COME UP.
FOR ANNUALLY AND OTHERS OF YOU
THROUGH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BUT
THANK YOU AGAIN.
I TO A JUDGE THAT WOULD HAVE TO
SERVE OVER TWENTY FIVE YEARS I'M
A GRAY DAVIS APPOINTEE.
THE MAJORITY OF YOUR TERRACE TWO
JUDGES ARE GONNA BE APPOINTEES
OF GOVERNOR'S DAVIS
SCHWARZENEGGER AND BROWN -- I
CAN TELL YOU THAT A LOT OF MY
COLLEAGUES WHO.
ASKED ME TO SPEAK ON THEIR
BEHALF WANTED YOU TO KNOW THE
FOLLOWING ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES
WHO SPENT THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS
MORE THAN HALF OF IT DOING.
SERIOUS AND VIOLENT FELONY
CRIMINAL DISPOSITIONS AND
CERTAIN THINGS THAT MEANS THAT
HE DEALS WITH THE RUN OF THE
MILL.
MURDER SO IF YOU CAN SAY THAT
THE RUN OF THE MILL RATE THIS
THE RUN OF THE MILL CHILD
MOLESTERS OF THE RUN OF THE MILL.
SERIOUS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS ON
A DAILY BASIS.
HE ESTIMATES HE'S HANDLED OVER
FORTY THOUSAND SENTENCES IF HE
HAS TO SERVE.
BETWEEN TWENTY TO TWENTY FIVE
YEARS WHICH IS WHAT IT WOULD
HAVE TO DO UNDER THE CURRENT
SITUATION.
HE ESTIMATES THAT AT LEAST ONE
OF THOSE FORTY THOUSAND HOUSE
FELONS WE'LL BE BACK OUT WILL DO
SOMETHING AGAIN.
AND HE RISKS LOSING HIS ENTIRE
RETIREMENT AND OUT OF HIS
FAMILIES -- SIMPLY BECAUSE HE
WAS DOING ITS JOB OR DISPOSITION
DEPARTMENTS ARE WORD 97% OF ALL
OF OUR CASES ARE HANDLED LESS
THAN 3% OF OUR CSES.
GO TO TRIAL THIS IS WHERE THE
PARTIES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
THE CITY ATTORNEY THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER OR RETAIN COUNSEL
STIPULATE. TO AGREEMENTS THE
AND THE JUDGES THAT HANDLE THOSE
OR IMPOSE THEM -- HAVE CONCERNS
AND I I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS
I'VE SERVED PRIMARILY IN
CRIMINAL ASSIGNMENTS.
ALTHOUGH THE THREE YEARS THAT I
SPENT IN JUVENILE COURT DEALING
WITH NECTAR AND COLLECTED AND
ABUSED CHILDREN -- WERE PROBABLY
AS HEINOUS AS IT HAS ANY OF THE
CRIMINAL CASES THAT I'VE HANDLED.
SO ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE
JUDGES THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO BOTH
FROM -- THE ALLIANCE AS WELL AS
FROM THE CALIFORNIA DOES
ASSOCIATION BUT WE'RE GRATEFUL
FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE
NEEDS OF OUR BRANCH AND WE ASK
FOR YOUR AYE BOTH THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ARE THERE OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT PLEASE COME [inaudible]
FORWARD.
AARON RIGHT BURKE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION I SENATOR MORE LOCK
SAID WE OFFER SUPPORT FOR SB.
ONE EIGHTY FOUR AND AS HAS ALSO
BEEN SAID THE THIS BILL
ADDRESSES THE UNIQUE FEATURE OF
CLIFF VESTING UNDER THE CHAIR AS
TO SYSTEM A HARSH FEATURE.
AND A FEATURE THAT WOULD
ACTUALLY BE ILLEGAL UNDER ARREST
THAT IN AND OF ITSELF.
THE ISSUE OF CLIFF VESTING UNDER
THE CHAIR AS TO SYSTEM IS ONE OF
SEVERAL ISSUES WE SEE WITH THE
SYSTEM WHICH IS WHY THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
DID INTRODUCE A BILL IN THE
ASSEMBLY AB.
NINE SEVEN NINE THAT WILL ALSO
SPEAK TO THE CLIFF VESTING ISSUE
AS WELL AS SOME OTHER ISSUES AND
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
SENATOR AND WITH THE PROPONENTS
TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND
HOPEFULLY THAT BILL WILL MAKE IT
TO YOUR COMMITTEE.
UNTIL THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO
OFFER OUR SUPPORT FOR SB ONE
EIGHTY FOUR THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING I
CAN'T HAMLIN'S PER CORE FRESNO
COUNTY AND A DIRECTOR THE
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA JUDGES
URGING HER SUPPORT THANK YOU
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SHE COULD BE IN HERE AND JOHN
ADAMS SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE
COUNTY I ALSO OFFER MY SUPPORT
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
SEE NO.
ONE IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION.
NO ONE HERE IN OPPOSITION WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM -- SENATOR
PANDA.
I'M SORRY.
NO GOOD.
I'VE SEVEN WITH THE BILL OKAY
FOR A SERVICE CENTER PAN MOVIE
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE.
SENATOR MORE -- PROBABLY
THERE'LL BE ONE EIGHTY FOUR IS A
LONG OVERDUE FIX THAT WILL
ASSIST THE STATE WILL ASSIST THE
STATE BY.
ONE REMOVING A POTENTIAL BURDEN
FROM A LARGE SEGMENT OF MEMBERS
IN THE THIRD BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT IS.
VERY AWKWARD TO FORCE THEM TO
WORK WHILE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH
CHEMO REST OF THE DRESSES THAT.
CONCERN TO IT IT WILL PROVIDE
IMPROVE EMPLOYEE MORALE FOR
THOSE IN THIS TIER IN THREE
MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO
JUDGESHIPS BY OUR GOVERNOR.
IT WILL MAKE IT EASIER AS MANY
FIND THEMSELVES AT AGES WHERE
ENTERING THE PLAN JUST DOESN'T
PENCIL OUT SO.
CONSEQUENTLY I I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE ON SB ONE
EIGHTY FOUR THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR THANK YOU SENATOR MORE
LIKE WE DO HAVE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR PAN THIS WILL BE DO
PASSED TO SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE PLEASE.
THIS CALL THE ROLL SENATOR HILL
BY HILL AYE MORALE.
I JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL.
JULY PAN.
HI BY PHONE FIVE ZERO THE BILL
IS OUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH
[inaudible]
SENATE HUESO.
MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AS
BEFORE SIXTEEN WELCOME
THANK YOU NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN
THIS MORNING.
I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE
MISUNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE
ORDER.
WHEN I LIST HIS NAME HIS
SIGNATURE LOOKS LIKE A CHICKEN
SCRATCHING LOOKS?
LIKE A DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE
LEGIBLE ILLEGIBLE.
ANYWAY THANK YOU THANK YOU
SENATOR HUESO IT'S A PLEASURE TO
BE HERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.
AS BEFORE -- SIXTEEN THIS IS --
A MEASURE.
THAT WILL CREATE A A SYSTEM OF
EQUITY AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL ON THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
WORKERS COMPENSATION A SOMETHING.
EVERY WORKER SHOULD BE ENTITLED --
TO IMAGINE A COUNTRY -- THAT HAS
A SYSTEM THAT JUST DEVELOPS
INJURED WORKERS.
AND AND ESPECIALLY LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHERE ALMOST EVERY
SINGLE AGENCY.
IN OUR STATE IS HAVING A PROBLEM
RECRUITING -- PEOPLE TO COME
INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT WE HAVE --
VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE
STATE THAT HAVE LOTS OF OF OF
VACANCIES.
THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S VERY DIFFICULT
VERY DANGEROUS -- WHEN WHEN
PEOPLE ARE INJURED USUALLY THEY
CANNOT CONTINUE TO PERFORM THEIR
FUNCTIONS AND OFTEN TIMES --
WITH WITH -- THE THE MILLIONS
THAT OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS SPEND ON ON ON
TRAINING THESE OFFICERS.
ALL THAT IS LOST AND AND OFTEN
TIMES -- YOU KNOW WE'RE LOOKING
OUT.
FOR FOR THE SPENDING IN A VERY
SMALL COLUMN AND IGNORING
SPENDING VERY LARGE COLUMNS
SAYING WE'RE LOSING.
A TRAINED PERSONNEL THAT COST US
MILLION DOLLARS TO TRAIN OVER
OVER ISSUES OF OF PAY AND AND
AND AND BENEFITS.
I'M IN THIS BILL.
ATTEMPTS TO RECTIFY AN EQUITY IN
THE SYSTEM THAT GIVES.
A BENEFIT TO CERTAIN OFFICERS IN
IT OUT IN THE FIELD AND AND NOT
TO OTHERS.
AND I THINK IT'S IT'S A THIS
WASN'T NECESSARILY INTENTIONAL
BUT IT WAS -- OF AN ISSUE
RELATED TO CLASSIFICATION OF OF
EMPLOYEES I THINK -- WE TODAY --
BECAUSE OF CUTS THAT AFFECTED
HAVE AFFECTED GOVERNMENT AT ALL
LEVELS.
BUT WE HAVE OFFICERS SO UNDER
CERTAIN CLASSIFICATIONS ARE
DOING WORK.
IN AREAS THAT -- HAVE EXPANDED --
THAT HAVE FORCED HIM INTO --
MORE -- DANGEROUS EXPOSURE TO
THEIR HEALTH SO.
UNDER THE EXISTING LAW --
OFFICERS IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES --
OR GIVE IN -- SOME SHINS OR
OFFERED -- TO DISPUTABLE
PERCEPTIONS OF AN OCCUPATIONAL
INJURY -- THESE -- PRESUMPTIONS
INCLUDE -- THAT YOU KNOW IF IF
THEY GET A HEART DISEASE HERNIAS
PNEUMONIA CANCER MENINGITIS
TUBERCULOSIS VIA CHEMICAL
ILLNESS -- IT IS ASSUMED THAT IT
WAS DONE UNDER THE OF COURSE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT.
AND THEY'RE TREATED FIRST AND
QUESTIONS ARE ASKED LATER IF
IT'S DETERMINED OR NOT THEY YOU
KNOW ARE NOT -- COMPENSATED
UNDER THE SYSTEM THAT THAT THE
IS NOT AFFORDED TO EVERY -- LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL THIS BILL
WOULD SEEK -- TO FOR PROVIDE
THAT ADDITIONAL COVERAGE.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF OF
HOW MANY PEOPLE BE COVERED UNDER
THIS BILL.
THERE ARE ABOUT EIGHTY SEVEN
OVER EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND CLOSE
TO EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND POLICE
PEACE OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA.
94% WERE.
EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND ALMOST
EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND ARE ARE
COVERED UNDER.
THE PRESUMPTIONS -- THE EXISTING
CODES.
ABOUT 6% OR JUST OVER FIVE
THOUSAND ARE LEFT OUT.
IT'S A SMALL NUMBER BUT IT'S AN
AND A NUMBER THAT.
RUNS THE RISK OF BASICALLY NOT
ONLY LOSING THEIR THEIR JOBS BUT
OF OF GOING BANKRUPT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT OFFERED.
THIS BUT THIS PRESUMPTION.
THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET
TREATMENT IMMEDIATELY UNDER OUR
SYSTEM.
SO THIS BILL WOULD CORRECT THAT
INEQUITY WOULD GIVE -- THE THOSE --
REMAINING OFFICERS THE SAME
PRESCRIPTIONS AND ALLOW THEM TO
TO TO BE TREATED FAIRLY UNDER
THE EXISTING LAW AGAIN -- I
THINK ALL OF YOU UNDERSTAND --
THE THE THE DANGERS THAT ARE
THAT ARE OUR POLICE OFFICERS --
ARE EXPOSED TO EVERY SINGLE DAY
WHEN THEY THEY THEY WAKE UP
EVERY MORNING GO TO WORK -- THIS
BILL BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
ALL PEACE OFFICERS.
YOU KNOW UP.
SHOULD HAVE AN AT AND EQUITABLE
SYSTEM OF CARE.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN COUNT ON
YOUR SUPPORT TODAY -- FOR THIS
IMPORTANT BILL [inaudible]
YES.
WHICH IS IN SUPPORT.
MR REMEMBERS RAINY PERRY WITH
ERIN REDUCE HAVE SINCE SOME HALF
A PORAC.
THIS THIS IS TRULY AN A AND AN
INEQUITY AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY
AND HOW AND HOW IT ACTUALLY
BECAME -- CAME TO TO TO BE THIS
WAY THE MANY OF WHAT WE CALL
WITHIN PARK RECALL SPECIALIZED
PEACE OFFICER G. OF AIRPORT
PEACE OFFICER SCHOOL POLICE
OFFICERS TRANSIT OFFICERS.
MANY OF THEM WERE NOT
ESTABLISHED WHEN MOST OF THE
TRIP WHEN -- PRESUMPTIONS WERE
CREATED [inaudible]
WHEN I?
CHARTED -- LONG TIME AGO.
THEY WERE REALLY IS IT WAS --
CITY AND COUNTY PEACE OFFICERS
WERE AND HIVE TROLL REALLY ABOUT
ALL YOU HAD.
AND THEY WERE HANDLING ALL OF
THOSE ISSUES OF SOMETHING
HAPPENED A SCHOOL THAT ROLL ONS
OF THE AIRPORT AND ROLE ON ON
THEIR WORK SIDE BY SIDE WITH
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR EXAMPLE TO
RUN THE AIRPORTS -- IN THE LATE
SEVENTIES AND ALL THE WAY
THROUGH THE EIGHTIES.
AGENCIES STARTED EITHER SPECIAL
DISTRICTS OR BEGAN FOR EXAMPLE --
JUST TO SPEAK TO MISTER WEBB
WHO'S HERE ALL USE HIM AS AN
EXAMPLE STARTED -- DEVELOPING A
CAMPUSES FOR EXAMPLE SCHOOL
STARTED DEVELOPING POLICE
OFFICERS ACTUAL POLICE OFFICERS
THEY WERE CALLING HIM POLICE
OFFICERS IN THE EIGHTIES BUT
THERE REALLY SECURITY GUARDS
THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE THIS
TRAINING.
THAT OFFICERS HAVE TODAY SO IF
THERE IS A SEX CRIME HONOR ON A
COLLEGE CAMPUS OR SOMETHING IN
AND GOING ON A DRUG A MAJOR DRUG
ISSUE OR SOMETHING GOING ON A
SCHOOL CAMPUS.
THEY WOULD CALL THESE PEOPLE
CALL PLEASE BUT THEY WEREN'T
THERE SECURITY GUARDS.
AND SO THEY THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE
EXPERTISE AND IN OUR OPINION WAS
PUTTING PEOPLE IN DANGER.
WHEN THEY HAD AN EXPECTATION OF
A POLICE OFFICER ANYWHERE GET
NOW SO?
IN THE EIGHTIES WE REALLY
STARTED LOOKING AT THESE AREAS
INSANE STOP USING THESE WHAT YOU
WERE CALLING POLICE OFFICERS ARE
NOT IN ALL THESE AREAS A RESUME
ON TRANSIT DISTRICTS.
AND WE STARTED THE LEGISLATURE
STARTED SAYING NOW IF YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE A POLICE OFFICER
THEY NEED TO BE FULLY TRAINED
POLICE OFFICERS AND THEY NEED TO
BE CALL POLICE IF YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO DO THAT NO DON'T WANT
TO PAY FOR THAT. FOR THE
BENEFITS.
THE NEW SECURITY OFFICERS AND
WILL CALL POLICE ON THE CAMPUS.
IN THE PROBLEM IS AB THESE
PEOPLE WERE THESE OFFICERS WERE
CREATED AFTER A LOT OF THE AFTER
A LOT OF THE PRESUMPTIONS WERE
WRITTEN.
SO -- WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING
TO DO OVER THE YEARS AS WITH NEW
PRESUMPTIONS EXPOSURES TO
CHEMICALS AND ALIKE -- WE HAVE
BEEN INCLUDING ALL PEACE
OFFICERS BUT THEY ARE THERE A
LOT OF THESE PEACE OFFICERS WHO
BY THE WAY GO TO THE SAME
ACADEMY IS AS ELLIE PD FOR
EXAMPLE DOWNTURN.
LA -- AT ALL THE SAME ACADEMIES
FULLY TRAINED BUT A LOT OF THE
SPECIALIZE OFFICERS HAVE
ADDITIONAL TRAINING BUT A
REGULAR A CITY OR OR
MUNICIPALITY -- PEACE OFFICER
WILL LIKE FOR EXAMPLE AND ALL
THAT AGAIN ALL I MISSED WHAT
TALK THE THEY HAVE TO BE TRAINED
IN EDUCATION CODE ISSUES HOW.
TO HOW TO DEAL AND WORK WITH
STUDENTS -- I KNOW AIRPORT
POLICE HAVE TO LEARN ALL THE FAA
REGULATIONS AND HOW TO WORK ON
ALL OF THE TERRORISM ISSUES ARE.
THAT ON A REGULAR CITY OR COUNTY
POLICE OFFICER DOESN'T HAVE.
TO SO THERE'S ALWAYS THIS
MISNOMER AND AND IT WAS IN A
LETTER THAT I READ FROM THE
OPPOSITION -- YOU KNOW THERE
THEY CALL.
REAL COPS ARE REAL PLEASE UPDATE
REFERENCE TO AND IT WAS
RIDICULOUS THEY'VE CLEARLY DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHO WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE.
ALL THIS BILL DOES IS SIMPLY
SAYS THAT IF AN OFFICER IN ALL
USE HERE POOR FOLKS YOU WERE IN
AN EXPERT MAJOR EXPLOSION OF A
OF AN AIRPLANE CRASH OR SOME.
AND YOU ARE EXPOSED TO THE SAME
CHEMICALS AS ALL THE OTHER
DEPARTMENTS WERE ROLLING INTO
THAT SYSTEM AND YOU GET CANCER
OR WHATEVER THAT INJURY IS.
THAT ALL THE OTHER PEACE
OFFICERS GUY.
YOU SHOULD HAVE THE SAME.
BENEFIT AND THAT IS THE SHOULD
HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO A
PRESUMPTION.
GET TO WORK IMMEDIATELY SO YOU
CAN GET RIGHT BACK TO WORK AND
GET BACK ON THE JOB.
AND THAT'S ALL THE BILL HOUSE.
FOR THANK YOU MISTER PERRY GOOD
MORNING THE FOOD.
GOOD MORNING HAVE MONIES PJ WEB --
ON THE PRESIDENT THE LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION AND I'M ALSO THE
CHAIR OF THE SPECIALIZED
ASSOCIATIONS COALITION WITH PAUL
RACK -- HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL -- JUST
WANT TO COVER A COUPLE OF THINGS --
THESE HEALTH CONDITIONS -- FOR
WHICH THE CURRENT WORKERS COMP
PRESUMPTIONS -- COVER FOR MOST
OF THE FLEET PEACE OFFICERS IN
THE STATE THEY EXIST BECAUSE THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS RECOGNIZE
THAT PEACE OFFICERS ARE EXPOSED
TO THE RISK TO DEVELOP THESE
CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THEIR
CAREER.
AND MANY OF THESE CONDITIONS
THEY DON'T MANIFEST THEMSELVES
IMMEDIATELY ON IN FACT MANY OF
THEM MAY TAKE YEARS TO MANIFEST --
WITHOUT THESE PROTECTIONS FOR
THESE PEACE OFFICERS -- AS IN
PARTICULARLY THESE ONCE A TAKE
AWHILE TO MANIFEST -- EMPLOYERS
ROUTINELY DENY THESE CLAIMS
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PEACE
OFFICERS WORK FOR AGENCIES THAT
AREN'T COVERED UNDER THE CURRENT
PRESUMPTIONS -- WHAT THIS HAVE
THIS CREATED A SCENARIO?
WHERE THESE OFFICERS HAVE TO USE
OF THEIR OWN HEALTH BENEFITS FOR
TREATMENTS -- INCURRING
ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL STRAIN WITH
CO PAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIBLES THAT
THEY HAVE THROUGH THEIR THEY
HAVE TO USE THEIR OWN LEAVE TIME.
WHEN I LEAVE TIME IS EXHAUSTED
IF THEY'RE NOT BETTER THEY'RE
SEPARATED FROM SERVICE?
CAUSING FURTHER FINANCIAL STRAIN
AND LOSE THEIR HEALTHCARE
BENEFITS THEY'RE EMPLOYER
COVERED HEALTH BENEFITS.
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE FINANCIAL
DISASTER FOR THE OFFICERS AND
THEIR FAMILIES AND IN MANY CASES
IT'S COSTS THAN MY VERY LIFE --
QUESTION I I HAVE IS DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE OF THE STATE
DETERMINES IS TRAINING AND
STANDARDS THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE
TO MEET IN ORDER TO BECOME PEACE
OFFICERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND THEN THE EXCLUDED GROUP OF
THOSE OFFICERS FROM THE WORKERS
COMP PROTECTION SIMPLY BECAUSE
OF WHO THEY WORK.
FOR WHO EMPLOYEES -- THE
EXCLUDED PEACE OFFICERS A TRAIN
WORK THEY TRAIN AND THEY WORK
SIDE BY SIDE WITH ALL THESE
OTHER PEACE OFFICERS WERE THE
SAME EQUIPMENT.
AND THEY'RE EXPOSED TO THE SAME
HEALTH RISKS AS THEIR
COUNTERPARTS IN OTHER AGENCIES.
AND JUST AS AS AN EXAMPLE FOR OF
THE CURRENT INEQUITIES AND I'LL
USE MY AGENCY AS AN EXAMPLE --
ARE THERE MANY CITY AND COUNTY
AGENCIES THAT -- PROVIDE FULL
TIME SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS --
TO SCHOOLS THAT WORK IN SCHOOLS --
THE POLICE -- THE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WHO DON'T HAVE THEIR
OWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THOSE OFFICERS OF THE SORROWS.
ARE PERFORMING THE IDENTICAL
SAME DUTIES THAT OUR OFFICERS DO
AND ALL SCHOOL PEACE OFFICERS IN
THE STATE AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
OFFICERS.
AT AND THOSE OFFICERS ARE
COVERED UNDER WORKER'S
COMPENSATION PRESUMPTIONS AND IT
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF WHO EMPLOYEES
ARE.
NOT THE JOB THEY'RE DOING --
THIS BILL EXPANDS COVERAGE ONLY
TWO SWORN PEACE OFFICERS AS
DEFINED IN THE PENAL CODE.
IT'S NOT MAKING UP ANYTHING NEW --
IT'S IT'S THE COSTS THAT THE
THAT SOME OF THE OPPOSITION ARE
REFERRING -- TO AS A RESULT OF
THE PASSAGES BILL ARE VERY
LIKELY BE OFFSET.
BY SAVINGS TO THEIR EMPLOYER
PAID HEALTH BENEFITS.
WHICH IS CASA DRIVE UP WITH THE
USAGE THAT THAT IS NECESSARY TO
TREAT SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS.
THE RETENTION OF QUALITY
EMPLOYEES.
AND SAVINGS FROM EMPLOYEE IS
RETURNING TO WORK EARLIER.
BECAUSE THROUGH THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM IN THE
REFORMS A FEW YEARS AGO -- AN
INDEPENDENT -- MEDICAL REVIEW
PROCESS SO EXISTS AND IT'S THERE
TO MONITOR THE WHOLE SITUATION
TO MAKE SURE THESE EMPLOYEES ARE
ABLE TO RETURN TO WORK EARLIER.
SAVING ADDITIONAL MONEY -- WE
HAVE DATA -- A SIMILAR BILL --
WAS -- VETOED A FEW YEARS AGO BY
GOVERNOR BROWN -- REQUESTING --
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE -- TO SHOW
THAT THESE CLASSES OF PEACE
OFFICERS ARE EXPOSED TO THE SAME
RISKS AS AS THE OFFICERS WHO ARE
CURRENTLY COVERED -- UNIT WE WE
HAVE TO STOP AND THINK WHAT OKAY
WHAT.
WOULD QUALIFY AS AS EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY
EXPOSED TO THESE RISKS WHAT I
CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF THINGS
ONE IS REAL LIFE STORIES AND
EXAMPLES.
AND I COULD BE HERE ALL DAY
PROVIDING THOSE AND I'LL BE
HAPPY TO GIVE YOU SOME IF IF THE
CHAIR -- OR OR OR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN
HEARING THOSE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO -- DATA
THAT'S COMPILED -- FROM ACTUAL
WORKERS COMP CLAIMS THAT WERE
FILED BY THESE PEACE OFFICERS
WITH THEIRS EMPLOYERS.
AND COMPARING WHAT WAS.
WHAT WAS APPROVED WHAT WAS
DENIED WHAT WAS APPEALED WAS
ULTIMATELY RULED IN THEIR FAVOR?
WELL.
THE ISSUE WITH THAT WHICH IS THE
WORST WHICH WE WE'VE RUN INTO
DIFFICULTY WITH IS A LOT OF
THESE EMPLOYERS REFUSED TO GIVE
UP GIVE UP THAT INFORMATION --
THEY PUT UP OBSTACLES HOWEVER I
WAS ABLE TO WITH THE LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHICH IS
ONE OF THE LARGER -- AGENCIES
REPRESENTING SOME OF THESE
OFFICERS THAT ARE COVERED TO
OBTAIN THIRTEEN YEARS A WORKERS
COMP DATA -- REGARDING
SPECIFICALLY THESE CONDITIONS
WILL BE COVERED UNDER THIS BILL.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK YOU.
TO REVENUE IF YOU WOULD PLEASE I
WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS REGARDING THOSE
REGARDING THAT DATA AND AND I DO
URGE YOUR SUPPORT A PROJECT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHER WITH
DECISION SUPPORT PLEASE COME TO
THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR
NAME AND AFFILIATION. TO YOUR
SUPPORT BRIAN RONIN -- PROBATION
OFFICER FROM KERN COUNTY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE STATE COALITION
A PROBATION ORGANIZATIONS ALSO A
MEMBEROF THE KERN COUNTY
PROBATION OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU -- TERMS HOURS A.
EXECUTIVE OFFICES FOR THE
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE THE
STATE FOR TURN OUR POLICE I'M IN
SUPPORT OF IT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
GOOD MORNING.
MORNING MR RANGE FROM A WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING THE PROBATION
OFFICERS -- DEPUTY CORNERS AND
OF COURSE THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ON
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING MORNING NICOLE
DOLLERY BUT WITH THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY PROBATION ASSOCIATION AND
IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
THANK YOU.
THE LADY SHORTLY FROM YELLOW
COUNTY PROBATION -- AND THEIR
THEIR UNION ASSOCIATION ALSO WE
ARE IN SUPPORT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING
JAMIE GRANT SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
PROBATION WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS FOR A PLEASANT SAN
BERNADINO COUNTY PROBATION VICE
PRESIDENT SB CPO WAY AND WE ARE
IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
GET MICHAEL DAVIS LA COUNTY
PROBATION LOCAL SIX EIGHTY FIVE
AND WE'RE IN SUPPORT THANK YOU.
SKYLANDER PRESIDENT SETTING --
COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER'S
ASSOCIATION SUPPORT THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING JOE MARTINEZ SOLANO
PROVISION PEACE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AND WE ARE
TO SUPPORT AT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU MISTER MARTINEZ.
GOOD MORNING BURKE MULLIN FRESNO
COUNTY PROVISION FARMING TO
MORNING -- REPRESENT FRESNO
COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION AND WE'RE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOOD MORNING CHRIS A SYMBOL OF
INTER COUNTY PROBATION I'M THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF INTER COUNTY
PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICERS WERE
IN SUPPORT THANK YOU.
FOR HELLO LEE HARRINGTON WITH
THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY PARK
RANGERS.
OR MEMBERS OF THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY ALLIANCE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THIS BILL YOU VERY MUCH.
MORNING MR CHAIRING COMMITTEE --
ROGER HILTON ASSOCIATION SO SHE
SHOULD ORANGE COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFF'S REPRESENT TWENTY EIGHT
HUNDRED MEMBERS ACTIVE MEMBERS.
EIGHT HUNDRED OF THEM OR
PROBATION OFFICERS AND WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL THANK YOU
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHERS IN
SUPPORT.
SEE NO -- ONE IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION PLEASE COME
FORTH [inaudible]
PLEASE [inaudible]
GOOD MORNING.
CALIFORNIA'S INSTITUTION JOINT
POWERS IT OR IF YOU NEED.
TO YOUR HONOR.
THANK YOU SO MUCH AT FOR THOSE
OF YOU NEW TO THE COMMITTEE MOST
PUBLIC ENTITY IS A SELF INSURED
THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF A JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY WHICH ALLOWS
THEM TO FORM A NONPROFIT PUBLIC
ENTITY.
A CORPORATION -- EXCEEDING
ORGANIZATION FOR THESE
OBLIGATIONS IT IS OUR GOAL IS
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS TO HELP OUR
INJURED EMPLOYEES RECEIVE
APPROPRIATE MEDICAL TREATMENT
AND TO RECOVER FROM THEIR
ILLNESSES AND RETURNED TO WORK
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
STUDY AFTER STUDY SHOWS THAT THE
SOONER AN INJURED WORKERS ABLE
TO RETURN TO WORK THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE BETTER.
MEDICAL OUTCOMES AND THERE
SHOULD BE A BROAD CONVERSATION
ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION
ELIGIBILITY THAT EXAMINES THE
COST AN IMPACT TO INJURED
WORKERS SUCH AS THE CHANGES
PROPOSED IN SB.
FOUR SIXTEEN AND AND WE'D BE
HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH
CONVERSATIONS.
IT'S BEEN IMPLIED THAT WITHOUT
PRESUMPTIONS THE ONLY RESORT
PERSONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND
PERSONAL TIME OFF OF WORK AND
NOT FAR FROM THE TRUTH.
ANY INJURED WORKER CAN MAKE A
WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIM AND
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ILLNESS OR
INJURY HAPPENED AT WORK AND THAT
IT AUTOMATICALLY COVERED IF IT
HAPPENED IT WORK REGARDLESS OF
FAULT OR THAT IT WAS CUSED BY
WORK.
CALIFORNIA'S WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED
TO FAVOR WORKERS WHO ARE
CLEANING INJURY OR ILLNESS IS
WORK RELATED.
IF THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT AN
INJURY ARISING OUT OF THE COURSE
OR SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.
LAW JUDGE WITH THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD IS
REQUIRED TO FOLLOW LABOR CODE
FOR THIRTY TWO OH TWO WHICH
REQUIRES THAT STATUTES SHALL BE
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED BY THE
COURTS WITH THE PURPOSE OF
EXTENDING THEIR BENEFITS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PERSONS INJURED.
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT. TO ASSUME THAT WORK
AT VARIOUS SITES COVERED BY THIS
BILL IS SOLELY AND EFFECTIVELY
UNDISPUTED WE THE CAUSE OF
CANCER AND OTHER SERIOUS
INJURIES.
IS NOT SUBJECTIVE OR SUPPORTED
BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR ANALYSIS.
OUR MEMBERS HAVE REPORTED THAT
CURRENTLY OPEN CLAIMS FOR THREE
INDEPENDENT CANCER CASES ARE
RESULTING IN SAVINGS THAT HAVE
TO BE SET ASIDE OF THREE POINT
NINE MILLION. THREE POINT ONE
MILLION AND TWO POINT FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS EACH THESE ARE
NOT SMALL AMOUNTS OF MONEY ASKED
TO BE SET ASIDE BY A PUBLIC
ENTITY IS.
PRESUMPTION SHOULD BE USED BUT
RARELY AND WHEN JUSTIFIED BY
APPROPRIATE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
SAID NOT PROVIDED US WITH CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO A
CHOIR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
TAXPAYER FUNDING AS ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS FOR THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
FOR THESE REASONS WE REMAIN
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO REMIND.
GOOD MORNING THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN MURS JASON SMELTER HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION ON WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SEE SACK ACCESS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY.
FIRST ONE SAY WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE
A GREAT DEGREE OF RESPECT FOR
ALL OF THE OFFICERS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AND WE UNDERSTAND
FOR THESE BILLS ARE BEING
BROUGHT FORWARD -- WITH GOOD
INTENT.
WE HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENTS OVER
PUBLIC POLICY RELATIVE TO
PRESUMPTIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'RE A GOOD IDEA I THINK
FAITH IN A VERY GOOD JOB OF
LAYING OUT.
INTO THE ARGUMENT AROUND THE
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE --
IN AND THE LABOR CODEAND THE NO
FAULT SYSTEM.
A FEW COMMENTS BASED ON WHAT WAS
SAID EARLIER.
IT WAS IT WAS MENTIONED THAT
EMPLOYERS ARE WITHHOLDING DATA --
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATA THE SAYS
I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION I THINK OUR
RESPONSE TO ALL OF THESE
PRESUMPTION BILLS OVER THE YEARS
HAS BEEN.
LET'S SIT DOWN AND STUDY THIS
LET'S LOOK LOOK AT THE TYPES OF
INJURIES THE RATES OF DENIAL
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE SYSTEM
ACTUALLY DEVELOP AN OBJECTIVE
BASIS FOR MOVING FORWARD.
THE INEQUITY THAT'S NOTED IN THE
SYSTEM IN LARGE DEGREE IS
POLITICAL AND I'M JUST GONNA GO
AND SAY THAT OUT LOUD IT IS
BANNED WHAT CAN WE GET THROUGH.
IN WHAT PERIODS OF TIME ON WHAT
BILLS WITHOUT GETTING THEM HELD
IN THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
OR SOME OTHER THING.
IT'S BEEN A CHOICE ABOUT PUBLIC
POLICY IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AND
AND AND IN EQUITY OKAY --
THERE'S BEEN CHOICES THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE AROUND THESE AROUND
THESE BILLS -- IT WAS ALSO SAID
THAT THEIR ROUTINE TO NILES -- I
AM PERSONALLY NOT AWARE OF THIS
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REVIEW ANY
DATA THE COMMISSION ON HEALTH
AND SAFETY AND WORKERS
COMPENSATION DOES A COMPENDIUM
OF DATA AND THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM THAT'S TWO
THREE FOUR HUNDRED PAGES THICK.
EVERY YEAR THAT CUTS AND SLICES
EVERY BIT OF DATA THAT'S
AVAILABLE -- WE HAVE A
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
THE NEED FOR PRESUMPTIONS WE
DON'T BELIEVE THESE CLAIMS ARE
BEING DENIED AND WE DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM
IN THE SYSTEM IN THERE FOR FOR
NOW WE JUROR NO VOTE BUT AGAIN
IF THERE'S A CONVERSATION TO BE
HAD AROUND DATA AND ANALYSIS --
WE'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME.
FOR THE MORNING MANUALLY ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION
AND IF OPPOSITION THANK USUALLY
OTHERS.
IN OPPOSITION.
JOSH DUGGAR ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES ALSO IN OPPOSITION AND
ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUES AT
THE URBAN I COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NO ONE BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE AS SENATOR JEFF
YES THANK YOU -- I'M.
WONDERING WE HAD A WHOLE LOT OF
PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOLKS COME
UP AND I DIDN'T SEE IN THE
ANALYSIS.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE DEFINITION
OF PEACE OFFICERS IS IT.
IS IT ACCURATE THAT THIS BILL
WILL NOW EXPAND THAT DEFINITION
TO INCLUDE PROBATION OFFICERS
WHO WARD PREVIOUSLY.
COVERED BECAUSE OF THE
DEFINITION THAT YOU INDICATED OR
YOU KNOW WHAT IN.
IT THANK YOU VERY MUCH
INTERJECTION WE THAT'S A VERY
GOOD POINT AND I WAS GOING TO
RAISE THAT AT THE END TO IT
BECAUSE I THINK.
IF THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD AND I
CERTAINLY SUPPORT.
SUPPORTING OUR OUR PEACE
OFFICERS IN THE WORK THAT THEY
DO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE SOME
DEFINITION OF WHAT EXACTLY THAT
IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WELL
THAT THAT IS MY CONCERN I DON'T
KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT I'M
ASSUMING BECAUSE WE SAW.
A LOT OF PROBATION OFFICERS AND
CAN RESPOND TO THAT.
I'M HAPPY TO LET ME FINISH THE
QUESTION -- BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO BUT I
DIDN'T KNOW TO WHAT DEFINITION
THERE IS A PEACE OFFICER AND SO
THAT.
IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK NEEDS
TO BE CLARIFIED BUT IF -- IF
INDEED.
THIS NOW WILL INCLUDE PROBATION
OFFICERS WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY
INCLUDED I I'D APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT INFORMATION.
MEASUREMENT.
AGAIN RANDY PERRY WITH POOR ACT --
I'D LIKE FIREFIGHTERS WHERE IF
YOU'RE DISTRICT OR CITY
FIREFIGHTER COUNTY SCHOOLS CAL
FIRE STATE.
FIREFIGHTERS FIREFIGHTER YEAR
MISTRESSES FIREFIGHTER AND
PRESUMPTIONS IN YOUR COVERED.
WITH PEACE OFFICERS YOU GET TO
GO TO CHAPTER FOUR POINT FIVE OF
THE PENAL CODE COMMITTEE WAS
SECTION EIGHT THIRTY AT SEC
[inaudible]
I'M.
AND THAT DEFINES EVERY CATEGORY
OF PEACE OFFICER FOR EXAMPLE
EIGHT THIRTY POINT.
ONE IS A CITY MUNICIPAL A PEACE
OFFICER AND A COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFF.
BUT I DID ASK MY STAFF TO GO
PULL THAT FOR ME SO BUT CUTTING
THROUGH THE CHASE -- A TO THE
CHASE HERE -- OUR PROBATION
OFFICERS CURRENTLY NOT INCLUDED
AND SO THIS BILL WILL EXPAND TO
INCLUDE PROBATION OFFICERS.
SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES.
HOW MANY PROBATION OFFICERS ARE
THERE WHO WILL NOW BE INCLUDED --
WHO WERE NOT CURRENTLY CORRECT --
COVERED UNDER THE CURRENT
DEFINITION PIECE OFF HERE WE
HAVE THE NUMBERS THE THE THE
NUMBERS THAT I CITED -- INCLUDE --
ALL CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS
BILL -- THAT NUMBER IS PRECISELY
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW THAT NUMBERS
FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND
THIRTEEN SO OFFICER IT WILL
COVER WHAT ABOUT OF THAT FIVE
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED ABOUT FOUR
THOUSAND OR PROBATION OFFICERS
OR I'M JUST.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE THERE
HERE HI I THINK WHAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL IS IT BECAUSE WHAT IT
SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE TRYING
TO DO AND I'M NOT SAYING RIGHTLY
WRONG I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A
SENSE OF THIS.
IS ADD PROBATION OFFICERS TO
PEACE OFFICERS WHO WILL BE
COVERED UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF
HEALTH CONDITIONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY A SO ASSUMED. TO BE --
AS A RESULT OF WORK RELATED
INJURY.
FOR BOB YOU KNOW POLICE POLICE
OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS AND
OTHERS AND NOW WE'RE ADDING
PROBATION INTO THAT SAID AMANDA
COURSE POLICE OFFICERS AND
SCHOOL POLICE.
SAID THEY'RE NOT AS MANY I
ASSUME AS I'M JUST LOOKING FOR
NOMINATIONS THE LARGEST NUMBER
KICKS FROM PROBABLY OF AT LEAST
HALF OF THAT NUMBER.
I WAS HE PROBABLY OVER TEN IS
THERE ANYTHING THAT -- CAN I
KNOW SOME PROBATION OFFICERS.
ARE THERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO
CARRY FIREARMS BECAUSE IT CAN BE
VERY DANGEROUS JOB I APPRECIATE
THAT BUT IS THERE ANY DATA.
CHOOSE ME THAT SHOWS THAT FOR
THIS PARTICULAR POPULATION THAT
THAT THERE IS A GREATER
PROPENSITY FOR SOME OF THESE
HEALTH CONDITIONS THAT YOU'VE
MENTIONED -- THAT ARE PART OF
THIS BILL AT CREATING THAT
PRESUMPTION OF OF JOB RELATED
INJURIES.
POOR CONDITION HEART DISEASE --
SHE GOT.
ANOTHER -- I KNOW THE DATA THE
HERNIA.
MONIA.
AND ENJOY IT IS BY A CHEMICAL
SUBSTANCE EXPOSURE.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT INDICATES
THAT THEY ARE AS LIKELY TO BE
EXPOSED TO THIS AS THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE CURRENTLY COVERED.
YES MA'AM.
THANK YOU -- THE DATA THAT I WAS
OBTAINED SAID THIRTEEN YEARS OF
DATA -- INDICATES THAT -- OF ALL
OF THE PRESUMPTIONS THEY CAN'T
THE OF THE THE CONDITIONS THAT
ARE COVERED UNDER THE
PRESUMPTIONS OVER THAT THIRTEEN
YEAR PERIOD -- IN IN.
THE LA -- THE SCHOOL POLICE
ARENA -- FOUR SWORN -- THE
NUMBERS ARE THREE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FOUR OUT F A POOL OF A
ABOUT FORTY NINE HUNDRED OR A
LITTLE OVER -- FOUR THOUSAND
OVER THAT SIXTEEN YEAR PERIOD OF
FILED CLAIMS.
PROBATION OFFICERS ALL I'M SORRY
I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR QUESTION
SPECIFIC.
LOOKING IT'S NOT WE DON'T HAVE
THE INFORMATION ON PROBATION --
HE HE PULLED UP FOR HIS
ORGANIZATION AND AND IT HAS LIKE.
A I WOULD ASK THEM.
IF THEY HAD THAT TYPE OF
INFORMATION.
BUT TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT YOU
SEE SOME OF THEM CARRY FIREARMS --
BUT HOWEVER THEY DO ROLL OUT
WITH THE PEACE OFFICERS WHENEVER
THEY'RE GOING TO HOUSE LIKE
THEY'RE ALWAYS IN ON THE HEADSET
HAVE FELT I I GUESS I'M SHOWS
OFF.
I DON'T HAVE THEM YEAH I'M A BIG
SUPPORTER PREVENT I THINK WE
NEED TO BE GIVING PROBATION MORE --
RISE FONTS ABILITIES BUT I'M
JUST WONDERING -- IS THERE ANY
DATA THAT SHOWS THAT THERE IS A
HIGHER PROPENSITY FOR PROBATION
OFFICERS DEVELOPING THESE
CONDITIONS AS A AS A RESULT OF
THEIR WORK EXPERIENCE -- YOU
KNOW SOME OF THE SCIENTIFIC DATA
SOME SOME INFORMATION THAT.
IDENTIFIES THE THEIR THEIR
EXPERIENCE IS LIKELY TO CAUSE
THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE ASKING IS A PRESUMPTION.
BASED UPON ONE'S WORK --
EXPERIENCE I'M JUST ASKING.
WE SHOULD ASSN YET YES WE WE
HAVE TRIED AND AT THIS POINT WE
HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
OBTAINING THAT -- THROUGH THE
PROBATION DEPARTMENT OF THE
THEIR THEIR EMPLOYERS -- WE KNOW
ANECDOTALLY THE PERCENTAGE OF
DENIED CLAIMS IS VERY MUCH THE
SAME THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND
CONSISTENT -- WHICH IS ABOUT 15%
OF THE CLAIMS FILED ARE DENIED --
GENERALLY THOSE ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE THAT I WOULD SPOKE TO
THAT ARE ROUTINELY DENIED
BECAUSE THEY TOOK A PERIOD OF
TIME TO MANIFEST THEMSELVES.
SO WE CAN PASS THAT DAD AND SEE
IF THEY CAN PUT IT TOGETHER.
YEAH SURE.
MY THANK YOU SENATOR CASH OTHER
OTHER QUESTIONS OF COMMITTEE
MEMBERS -- I MEAN THAT THE THAT
WAS OF CONCERN THAT THE THAT I
HAD AS WELL WAS THE LACK OF ITS
DEFINITION AND SPECIFICITY
RELATED.
TO THE WHO NOW IS CONSIDERED A
PEACE OFFICER IS DEFINED BY THE
THE BILL I MISS YOUR FIVE CHESS
I MEAN MICHAEL IT'S A SIMPLE
QUESTION WHY ARE WE DOES REQUIRE
WE INCLUDING THEM.
I MEAN IS THERE ANYTHING TO TO
SHOW THAT THEY SHOULD BE
INCLUDED BECAUSE EITHER THEY'RE
BEING DENIED CLAIMS.
THAT A AND THEY HAVE.
A YOU KNOW PERCENTAGE WISE THE
SIMILAR SIMILAR.
WORK EXPERIENCE AND EXPOSURE TO
THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY COVERED
I JUST.
CAN A Y. E..
WHY NOT BE YOU KNOW?
WHY IT WHY THEM I I WAS GOING TO
SOME SILLY ANALOGY BUT IT'S NOT
SILLY I'M JUST WONDERING IF
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT?
WHERE WE CAN KIND OF?
PUT OUR ARMS AROUND THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE INDEED AT RISK
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR
WORK.
WE CAN DERIVE HOW MANY PEOPLE
WOULD BE AFFECTED.
BY THIS BILL JUST BASED ON THE
DEFINITION OF HOW THOSE
POSITIONS ARE DEFINED AND WE
KNOW THAT THAT WILL COME OUT TO
ABOUT. FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
THIRTEEN POSITIONS.
THE AND WE ALSO DEFINE WHAT
THOSE -- HEALTH CONDITIONS ARE
AT THAT ARE COVERED UNDER THE
PRESUMPTION AND THEY'RE LISTED
AS WELL THE VERY SPECIFIC HEART
DISEASE AND IN OUR HERNIAS
PNEUMONIA CANCER MENINGITIS
TUBERCULOSIS.
BIOCHEMICAL ILLNESS AND AND WHEN
YOU REALLY LOOK AT I MEAN WHO
OUT THERE -- IS EXPOSED TO
BIOCHEMICAL ILLNESS SO NOT JUST
ON A ON A NO THEY GO HOME AND
THEY'RE EXPOSED TO THE BUCK IN
THE LOCAL ILLNESS.
THAT THAT SEEMS VERY UNLIKELY.
THE FOR SOMEBODY LIMóN A NORMAL
LIFE UNLESS STATE THEIR HOBBY IS
TO WORK WITH.
BIO CHEMICALS AFTER AFTER HOURS
AND THAT COULD PROBABLY BE A
CASE OF BEING MADE AGAINST THEM
BUT WE DO HAVE CURRENTLY
OFFICERS IN THESE POSITIONS THAT
GO OUT THERE AND THEY ARE
EXPOSED.
TO A BIO CHEMICAL WASTE OFTEN IF
THEY'RE IN IN A SETTING.
WHERE THEY HAVE -- TO
INVESTIGATE -- CERTAIN --
CERTAIN CRIMES OR ARE WORKING IN
AREAS WHERE THERE THESE
CHEMICALS ARE.
REGULARLY -- LOCATED.
BUT YOU KNOW THESE ARE VERY
STRESSFUL JOBS I DON'T KNOW
QUESTION VERY STRESSFUL JOBS AND
THE STRESS ITSELF OFTENTIMES
BEING EXPOSED TO VERY HIGH
LEVELS OF STRESS.
IS A VERY.
COMMON CONTRIBUTOR OF HEART
DISEASE AND AND AND SOME OF
THESE ILLNESSES AS WELL.
AND SO -- JUST BECAUSE YOUR
PROBATION OFFICER OR A SCHOOL
POLICE OFFICER DOESN'T MEAN
YOU'RE NOT EXPOSED TO SAYS.
STRESSFUL SETTINGS ON A DAILY
BASIS I THINK THOSE JOBS WE CAN
ALL AGREE ARE.
ARE ARE VERY STRESSFUL JOBS THE
VERY DIFFICULT JOBS AND OFTEN IN
AROUND -- INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS
THAT AT THAT HAVE -- CERTAIN.
BOB ELEMENTS IT WITHIN WITHIN
THEMSELVES AND EXPOSE.
THESE -- OFFICERS TO THESE
SPECIFIC ILLNESSES WELL WE HAVE
KIND OF NARROWED IT. TO TO THESE
AREAS THAT ARE.
UP AREAS THAT.
AFFECT OF THE POLICE PERSONNEL A
LITTLE BIT MORE MORE OFTEN THAN
THE PUBLIC IN A AND I UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN TERMS OF
PROVIDING SPECIFIC.
DATA I THINK.
WE HAVE WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN
ABLE TO COMPILE THAT.
THAT COVERS THE THE THE FULL
COHORT.
AND AN INDIVIDUALLY I DON'T KNOW
THAT WE CAN BREAK THAT DOWN BUT
WILL DEFINITELY TRY.
HERE SO IF I MAY UM OF HIS
FUTURE YOU KNOW WE JUST HEARD
TESTIMONY ABOUT JUDGES
RETIREMENT.
AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT ONE
JUDGE IS PROBABLY SINCE FORTY
THOUSAND PEOPLE I SUSPECT THAT'S
PRETTY STRESSFUL BUT DO WE MAKE
THE SAME PRESUMPTION FOR JUDGES
AND THE ANSWERS I DON'T THINK WE
DO.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHY WE ARE CREATING THAT
DISTINCTION SO I WILL SUPPORT
THE BILL NOW BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT.
THERE IS IF YOU KNOW DATA THAT
WILL CONFIRM THE INCLUSION OF
THIS GROUP IS APPROPRIATE THAT'S
ALL -- IS AN INTERJECTION IT'S
ACTUALLY.
I AGREE WITH YOU AND I THINK --
IT'S IT'S A Y. H..
ACTION TO TO TO TAKE IN WHAT
WITH THIS BILL DOES GO TO
APPROPRIATIONS AND AND I SHOULD
ON SO IF WE COULD.
GET THAT DATA IT BEFORE IT GETS
TO APPROPRIATIONS OUT OR AT
APPROPRIATIONS THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL AND THEN IT DOES COME TO
THE FLOOR FOR TO GET OUT OF
APPROPRIATIONS WILL LOOK AT
SENATOR.
JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP THE LIST
OF CONDITIONS ARE THOSE THE
CONDITIONS.
FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR
THE PEACE OFFICERS HOOTERS
PRESUMPTION OURS THEIR SPECIFIED.
OKAY SO THERE WASN'T SOME
ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS TO SAY THAT.
THE NEW POPULATION THAT WE'RE
ADDING ON AND REALIZING THEY'RE
ACTUALLY A DIVERSE GROUP TO I
MEAN THEY'RE NOT ALL.
YES -- WOULD. TO HAVE THE EXACT
SAME EXPOSURES BUT THERE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL. TO IN THE
EXACT SAME JOBS.
YOUR CORRECT FOR EXAMPLE AIRPORT.
OFFICERS ARE GENERALLY MORE MORE
EXPOSED MORE.
TO TALK SENSE AND AND YOU KNOW
RITE AID CHEMICAL CHEMICAL
EXPOSURE OKAY SO HE'S GOOD AT
ANY AYE.
NOT CERTAIN WHAT SUPPORT THE
BILL AND THEY'LL DO SO DAVE I
THINK IT'S HELPFUL I THINK IT'S
AN EXACT SAID GET SOME MORE.
DATA -- I HEARD ABOUT
FIREFIGHTERS AND YOU KNOW I
THINK THERE'S AND ONE NOW WE CAN
ARGUE ABOUT.
WELL MAYBE THEY'LL CHEMICAL
PLANT FIRES DIFFERENT A WILDFIRE
BUT SO THERE MAY BE MORE
SUPPLIES I THINK THERE'S
ACTUALLY MAYBE SOME MORE.
NO ONCE TO DEPENDING ON WHICH
ENVIRONMENT YOU ARE WORKING IN
AT THE MOMENT -- YOU KNOW WE
CERTAINLY WANT RECOGNIZE THE
ONES THAT ARE INHERENT TO THE
JOB -- WE ALSO WANT TO BE SURE
YOU KNOW I TELL ME TALK ABOUT
WORKERS COMP.
LABOR COMMITTEE TALKS WITH THE
ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT WITH THE
WORKERS COMP.
THAT AND WE WILL TRY TO BE SURE
FIRST OF ALL OF COURSE THE
WORKERS GET COMPENSATION A NEED
FOR MANY WORKPLACE L. INJURY
OKAY THAT'S NUMBER ONE BUT WE
ALS RECOGNIZE THERE'S A COST AT
THE OTHER END OF THAT SO.
WELL CERTAINLY THE THE IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR US TO TO GET THE
CARE TO GET THEM BACK TO WORK
HOPEFULLY.
THAT YOU KNOW WE HAVE TO KEEP
SOME MIND ON THE OTHER SIDE AS
WELL -- THE SURE THAT -- AT AND
AND SO I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO
HAVE SOME MORE DATA AND I DON'T
KNOW WAS OR AT ANY OF OUR
AGENCIES HAVE SOME MORE DATA I
REALIZE AND IT'S HARD TO GET
FROM THE PLAYER BUT WHETHER
THERE'S AN ON TERMS OF CLAIMS
ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS.
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GIVE
SOME GUIDANCE.
THANK YOU REPENT. FOR THE CALL
FOR THE QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE -- THERE A MOTION
[inaudible] TO FOR HELLO --
MOTION FROM US SENATOR MITCHELL
THANK YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE AND JUST YOU KNOW JUST
GENERALLY I THINK JOBS ARE ALL
ALL EMPLOYMENT STRESSFUL BUT
VERY FEW INVOLVE -- A THREAT TO
YOUR LIFE ON A DAILY BASIS AND
THAT THAT.
THAT I THINK BRINGS YOU KNOW
ADDITIONAL STRESSES TO TO A
PERSON -- DOING ITS JOB -- FOR
THE PUBLIC GOOD -- YOU KNOW I I
THINK GENERALLY.
I THINK OF US VERY STRONG
ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE
[inaudible]
THAT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THE THE
HOLES SYSTEM OF HOW WE HANDLE
OFFICERS IT IN?
IN IN -- IN CALIFORNIA I THINK --
YOU KNOW THEY'RE HAVING AN
EQUITY.
EXIST IN THIS SYSTEMS THAT
APPLIES TO SOME OFFICERS.
FOR MAYBE WHATEVER REASON OF
MISS PERRY SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS.
OF OR OR ALLUDED TO HIS
EXPERIENCE THAT IT WAS -- CAME
OUT ITS FUNCTION OF OF NEW -- OR
OLD POSITIONS GIVEN THE NEW
DUTIES.
NEW POLICE OFFICER POWERS THAT
DIDN'T EXIST -- THAT MAKES A LOT
OF SENSE TO ME WHY WHY WOULD BE
INCLUDED -- IS IS.
THERE THERE IS NO ROOM REALLY
GOOD ARGUMENT WHY WHY THAT.
THAT WAS DONE.
I THINK -- WE NEED TO CORRECT
THAT -- THERE BE BE THERE WILL
BE A COST BUT IT'S CUT COSTS
WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT PEOPLE ARE
PAID INTO PEOPLE ARE PAYING.
WORKERS COMPENSATION DEDUCTIONS
FROM THEIR CHECKS -- THERE WILL
BE AS AS AS MENTIONED HERE IN
THE PRESENTATION SAVINGS IN
OTHER AREAS.
THAT ARE COVERED BUT I THINK
THIS.
I THINK THE COST WILL WILL
BALANCE OUT.
OVERALL IN THE SYSTEM THE MOST
IMPORTANT PART I THINK.
THAT THAT WE NEED -- TO MENTION
SAID THIS DOESN'T COME AT A COST
TO THE OFFICERS WERE YOU
BASICALLY PUT THEM OUT IN THE
STREET.
WHERE WE'VE WOULD CREATE
INDIVIDUALS THAT GO INTO?
BANKRUPTCY OR FINANCIAL DISTRESS
DISTRESS OR LOSE THEIR HOMES OR
FOR WHATEVER REASON THE SYSTEM
CREATES -- THE CAUSE OF AN
EQUITY THESE OFFICERS ARE ARE
ARE ARE DEALING WITH FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP.
IN A SYSTEM THAT ACTUALLY CAN.
CAN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FOR A
FOUR TO PAY. FOR FOR FOR THEIR
CARE.
AND AND HOPEFULLY THEY ARE CARED
FOR IN A WAY THAT RETURNS AND
BACK TO THE JOB BECAUSE MOST
OFTEN OR NOT THESE WILL BE.
THE MOST EXPERIENCED -- OFFICERS
OF OF THE POPULATION GRAYSON
BASICALLY BE BEING TAKEN OUT OF
SERVICE.
AND THAT IN ITSELF HAS A COST
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO EVALUATE
THIS LEGISLATURE'S WELL THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
SUPPORT THANK YOU SENATOR HUESO.
THIS -- DESERVE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR MITCHELL TO DO PASSED TO
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN
GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE
LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF
PROBATION AND THEN A FURTHER
CLARIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION
OF EACH OFFICER WOULD BE
GRATEFUL THANK YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL.
STUNT SENATOR HILL HI HILL I'M
RURAL.
RURAL NO JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL.
MITCHELL AYE PAN [inaudible]
HI. FOUR FOUR VOTES THE BILL IS
A THANK YOU VERY MUCH SENATE
HUESO [inaudible]
GENERAL.
I AM I DON'T SEE SENATOR WIENER
IS OUR ONLY OTHER [inaudible]
CENTERS.
MOVING TO ITEM SEVEN SP THREE
FORTY ONE SENATOR MORALE.
THANK YOU GUYS VICE CHAIR
MARYLAND THING RIGHT HERE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS SENATE BILL THREE FORTY
ONE ONE IMPROVE STATE FUNDING
PENSIONS.
AND LABOR PRACTICES IN OUR OUR
STATE BY PAYING DOWN LIABILITIES.
INCREASING TRANSPARENCY IN --
PROVIDING THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE --
IN HOLDING THE STATE THE SAME
LABOR PRACTICES IMPOSED ON THE
PRIVATE SECTOR.
CURRENTLY OUR STATE TEACHERS
RETIREMENT PROGRAM IS FACING.
MORE THAN A HUNDRED BILLION AND
FUN LIABILITIES WHICH I THINK WE
ALL KNOW -- THIS BILL WILL
CAPITALIZE ARE ROBUST SURPLUS
INAPPROPRIATE TO TWO BILLION
DOLLARS TO PAY DOWN CAL STIRS
LIABILITIES.
IN TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN I
INTRODUCED SB SIX OH ONE TO
PROVIDE LEGISLATORS.
AND THE PUBLIC WITH THE REAL
PICTURE OF WHAT LIABILITIES --
FOR ARE FOR CALPERS CAL STIRS IN
INDIA YOU SEE RETIREMENT PLAN.
BY USING A RISK FREE -- DISCOUNT
RATE EACH SYSTEM WILL HAVE TO
SHOW TAXPAYERS AND THEIR MEMBERS
THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL LIABILITIES
THAT EACH SYSTEM PASSED.
AS AN EXAMPLE CALPERS USES -- A
RATE RIGHT NOW 7% DISCOUNT RATE
TO REPORT THEIR UNFUNDED
LIABILITIES AT THREE HUNDRED AND
THIRTY ONE BILLION.
HAVE COMPARED TO A MORE
REALISTIC DISCOUNT RATE AT
APPROXIMATELY 3% -- THE
LIABILITY WHICH IS WOULD BE OVER
ONE TRILLION WHICH IS VERY
ALARMING -- THE PENSION
PROTECTION ACT OF TWO THOUSAND
SIX THAT -- SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
ON WHAT DISCOUNT RATE --
CORPORATIONS CAN USE TO REPORT
THE PRESENT VALUE OF PLAN
LIABILITIES SO THEY MUST REPORT
ON DISCOUNT RATE OF SET BY THE
US TREASURY AND I THINK THAT.
POINT SEVEN TODAY.
PERHAPS THE RATE -- SHOULD
FOLLOW THE STANDARDS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS PUT IN PLACE.
AS A PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS
THROUGHOUT -- AMERICA AND IN
CALIFORNIA SB THREE FORTY ONE
WILL CHANGE THE CAL SAVERS
RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR PRIVATE
EMPLOYEES -- FROM AN AUTOMATIC
IN ROMAN TO AN ACTIVE OP IN
PLANT BY CREATING OFTEN WE CAN
ASSURE THAT WORKERS AREN'T
PUTTING 8% OF THEIR PAY INTO A
PROGRAM BY MISTAKE.
THIS WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS
FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT EXPECTED.
SB THREE FORTY ONE PROVIDES THE
FREEDOM.
BY ENSURING INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT
BE FORCED INTO RETIREMENT PLAN
THEY DO NOT WANT.
IT WILL ALLOW POLICE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE INFORMED
DECISIONS LASTLY THIS BILL
PROMOTES FAIRNESS BY REQUIRING.
THAT THE STATE PLAY BY THE SAME
RULES THAT MANDATES FOR PRIVATE
EMPLOYERS.
CALIFORNIA EXEMPTS ITSELF FROM
LABOR CODES IN ONLY PAYS WORKERS
ONCE PER MONTH A STUDY IN TWO
THOUSAND FOURTEEN FOUND
EMPLOYEES.
REFERRED TO P. PAID ON MORE
OFTEN.
MANY WORKERS FIND IT DIFFICULT
TO BUDGET WITH A SINGLE PAYCHECK
FOR THE MONTHS OF SWITCHING TO A
SEMI MONTHLY.
PAY SCHEDULE ACTUALLY INCREASES
THE THE TAKE HOME PAY FOR
EMPLOYEES A SENSE LESS IS BEING
WITHHELD FROM THEIR CHECKS FOR
TAXES.
CALIFORNIA REGULARLY RANKS AS WE
KNOW FIFTIETH AS MOST DIFFICULT
STATE TO DO BUSINESS IN.
THE TO THE VAST RULES AND
REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON A PRIVATE
SECTOR WITH THESE CHANGES --
MAYBE CALIFORNIA WILL BE LESS
INCLINED TO IMPOSE -- BUSINESS --
HAMPERING RELATIONS --
REGULATIONS AND LAWS I THANK YOU
CAN RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR RIVAL
AND JUST BE THREE FORTY ONE
THANK YOU SENATOR MORALE --
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
PLEASE COME FORWARD -- WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION.
PLEASE COME FORTH.
OKAY WE DO HAVE.
IT PLEASE.
IF THE COUPLE WITNESSES.
TO GET INTO SOME DETAIL IF YOU
LIKE AND THEN -- COULD HAVE JUST
THE ME TO USE AFTER PLEASE
CERTAINLY -- MISTER CHAIRMAN
SENATORS TERRY BRENNAN ON BEHALF
OF S. YEAH YOU CALIFORNIA --
I'LL BE BRIEF -- FIRST OF ALL I
WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR
THEIR ANALYSIS IT'S VERY
COMPLETE DETAILED.
AND RECOGNIZES THAT THIS BILL IS
A COMPILATION OF AT LEAST THREE
OTHER BILLS.
THAT FAILED IN THIS WELL THE
PRIOR VERSIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE
IN THE SENATE PURSE COMMITTEE.
IN PRIOR YEARS AND I WOULD SAY
FOR GOOD REASON -- AND COMPILING
THEM A RECAPITULATION I THINK
THE ANALYSIS SAYS IN THE ONE
BILL DOES NOT MAKE THEM A BETTER
IDEA.
AND FOR THE SAME REASONS IT WAS
REJECTED BEFORE WE'D LIKE TO
URGE YOUR NO VOTE AND REMAIN
OPPOSED THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY
MUCH GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON KATIE SALEN
SKI I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE CALIFORNIA SECURE CHOICE
RETIREMENT SAVINGS INVESTMENT
BOARD.
WHICH OVERSEES THE CAL SAVERS
PROGRAM I'M HERE TODAY --
REPRESENTING TREASURER FIONA
MAMA -- AND WHO IS THE CHAIR OF
OUR BOARD -- TO EXPRESS HER
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURES VERY
SPECIFICALLY AND NARROWLY THE
CAL SAVERS.
PORTION OF IT AND MOST SIMPLY
PUT THE THE PROPOSAL TO TO MAKE
HEALTHY RISEN OFTEN PROGRAM
WOULD REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY
UNDERMINED.
THE BASIC PREMISE IN THE MISSION
OF THE PROGRAM AND MAKE IT
HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO SAVE FOR
RETIREMENT.
GIVE ME.
THE FOREST A MORE JUST A VERY
BRIEF UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF
OUR IMPLEMENTATION WE'RE IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE SIX MONTH PILOT
AND WE ARE PREPARING FOR OUR
FULL STATEWIDE LAUNCH ON JULY
FIRST.
THE PILOT REFLECTS THE DIVERSITY
OF THE STATE IN TERMS OF
GEOGRAPHY AND INDUSTRY AND IT'S
GOING VERY WELL WE'RE GETTNG A
LOT OF GOOD.
GOOD FEEDBACK SO FAR SO YOU KNOW
REALLY THE THE MAIN REASON CAL
SAVERS WAS ESTABLISHED IS
BECAUSE AT NEARLY HALF OF
WORKING CALIFORNIANS ARE ON A
TRAJECTORY TO RETIRE AND
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
AND WE KNOW THAT ONE OF THE MAIN
DRIVERS OF THAT IS THAT SEVEN
AND A HALF MILLION HARD WORKING
CALIFORNIANS WHO FOLLOW THE
RULES EVERY DAY AND GO TO WORK.
DON'T HAVE A WAY AN EASY WAY TO
SAVE AT WORK THROUGH THEIR
PAYROLL -- AND WE KNOW THAT FROM
RESEARCH THAT PEOPLE ARE TWENTY
TIMES MORE LIKELY TO SAVE FOR
RETIREMENT IF THEY HAVE AN
AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT PAYROLL
DEDUCTION FORM OF SAVINGS.
SO REALLY THAT WAS THE MAIN
PREMISE OF SENATE BILL ONE TWO
THREE FOUR AND TWENTY SIXTEEN
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE REALLY --
TOOK BOLD INITIATIVE -- TO
IMPROVE RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND
RETIREMENT SECURITY FOR FOR
WORKING CALIFORNIANS -- YOU KNOW
THE MAIN THE MAIN FEATURE OF THE
PROGRAM REALLY IS THAT AUTOMATIC
ENROLMENT FEATURE -- TO BE CLEAR
PARTICIPATION IS COMPLETELY
VOLUNTARY FOR EMPLOYEES THEY CAN
OPT OUT AT ANY TIME -- GET BACK
IN AND YOU KNOW THAT
PARTICIPATION IS ABSOLUTELY
VOLUNTARY NOT TO THEM THEY CAN.
THAT WITHDRAW THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS TAX AND PENALTY
FREE IF THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND
IN THE FUTURE THE REMOVAL OF
THAT AUTOMATIC ENROLMENT FEATURE
WOULD IN AND REPLACE IT FIND
THAT WOULD REALLY REALLY
UNDERMINE THE THE WITH THE
INTENTION THE GOALS OF THE
PROGRAM.
AND WOULD REDUCE OVERALL
RETIREMENT PREPAREDNESS ACROSS
THE STATE AND IT WOULD IT WOULD
THREATEN THE PROGRAM'S LIABILITY
AS WELL -- RESEARCH HAS SHOWN
THAT AUTOMATIC IN RALEIGH
ENROLLMENT -- DRAMATICALLY
INCREASES PARTICIPATION AND
RETIREMENT SECURITY THE BASED
SOLELY ON THE CAL SAVERS PORTION
OF THE PROPOSAL I TREASURE MY
EXPRESSES HER OPPOSITION
RECYCLING MUCH.
OTHERS IN OPPOSITION PLEASE.
WITH YOUR SUPPORT AT YOUR I'D
LIKE TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT
SPECIFICALLY ON THE BILL'S
IMPACT IN REGARD TO CAL STARS.
AS THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED
I'M JENNIFER BAKER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DO AS WELL
OPPOSE THIS MEASURE UP FOR A
MULTITUDE OF REASONS BUT I'D
LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY COMMENT ON
CAL STIRS.
WE DO APPRECIATE THE CENTER'S
ATTEMPT TO TRY TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING BUT WE
ACTUALLY DOING.
IN FACT SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR CAL STIRS THROUGH
THE BUDGET BY PROVIDING POP TO
FUND SPECIFICALLY TO DISTRICTS
IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM --
SEPARATE RELIEF BUT ADDITIONALLY
TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT ON
BEHALF OF DISTRICTS AND WE ALSO
SUPPORT HIS PROPOSAL. TO ALSO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE WE BELIEVE
THAT THAT'S A VERY PRUDENT WAY
FOR THE STATE TO SHOW ITS
SUPPORT OF FULLY FUNDING CASTERS.
BUT WE ALSO DO OPPOSE IT WHAT WE
BELIEVE IS A MANIPULATION OF CAL
STIRS A CIVIL TO MEET
LIABILITIES BY USING A
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RATE -- I
RETURNED THAT CAL STIRS WOULD BE
USING THAT DOES NOT REFLECT THE
DIVERSITY OF THEIR INVESTMENTS
ARE THEIR ASSET ALLOCATIONS WE
BELIEVE THAT THE EXPERT TO
CASTERS WHO ARE EXTREMELY
TRANSPARENT IN HOW THEY SHOW
THOSE NUMBERS.
AND THEY ACTUALLY USE VARIOUS
METHODOLOGIES THAT GAS BE IS
REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY SHOW
VARIOUS SCENARIOS SIMILAR TO
WHAT THE CENTERS PROPOSED BUT
THEY'VE ALSO NOTED THAT THOSE
DON'T REFLECT THE PRACTICAL
REALITY OF THE INVESTMENTS AND
MORE IMPORTANTLY THE INVESTMENT
RETURNS THAT CAL STIRS RECEIVES.
SO IF YOU WE WERE TO USE THESE
ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED NUMBERS IT
WOULD ESSENTIALLY MORE THAN
DOUBLE -- THAT SHORTFALL SAID
THEY HAVE WHICH REALLY LEADS
BEDS THE QUESTION OF IS THIS A
WAY TO TRY TO DESTABILIZE
PROVIDING DEFINED BENEFIT
PENSIONS FOR CALIFORNIA'S
TEACHERS AND OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR
EMPLOYEES WE BELIEVE THAT THESE
ARE VERY IMPORTANT MECHANISM. TO
IN SURE THAT WE CAN RETAIN
TEACHERS IN OUR CLASSROOMS SO
THEREFORE WE OPPOSE THE MEASURE
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING MEET THE VARIOUS
SEIU LOCAL ONE THOUSAND
REPRESENTING NINETY SIX THOUSAND
STATE EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA I'M HERE IN
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL -- I I
APOLOGIZE MY LETTER GOT IN A
LITTLE LATE LAST NIGHT MY
COMMENTS ARE IN THE LETTER
HOWEVER JUST ONE THING I WANTED
TO POINT OUT ON A REGARDING THE
CAL SAVERS PROGRAM.
WE LIVE IN THE FIFTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD AND WE
REALLY SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING UP
IMPEDIMENTS TO PEOPLE SAVING FOR
THEIR RETIREMENT IT'S SO PEOPLE
CAN ACTUALLY RETIRE WITH DIGNITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOU.
A MISTER CHEN MEMBERS PAT READ
WITH THEIR AND READING
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT.
WERE POSTED BAIL AND JUST
ASSOCIATE OUR COMMENTS WITH
MISTER BRANDON AND OTHERS THANK
YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH
[inaudible]
GOOD MORNING.
PAVE ALL RATS REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA RETIRED TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION WE CAN CURRENT
EQUITY OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY
C. T. A AND ALSO OR R. AND
HARMONIZATION.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
MITCH SNIDER WITH CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION ALSO IN
OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
AS CHAIR RIGHT SHERMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION THE NO ONE BRING
IT BACK TO OUR COMMITTEE.
OF ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THE
I THINK.
THERE'S SEVERAL I WOULD YOU LIKE
TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE IF
YOU LIKE I MEAN I'VE.
BEEN IN REHAB NOW IT'S JUST AND
CHATTED I KIND OF AGREE WITH A
LOT OF THE COMMENTS IN.
YOU KNOW THE FINANCIAL RECORDED
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS -- I
DON'T BELIEVE ARE NECESSARY
BECAUSE THE CALPERS STIRS AND
YOU SEE OUR S. ALREADY PROVIDE
SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION IN THERE
AND AND THAT USING THE TEN YEAR
TREASURY.
RATE IS I DON'T THINK IT'S
REFLECTS THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS
DIVERSITY AND HOW IT IS PLEASE
OUT AND I THINK THERE'S A BUT I
FIND IT DEAL CHALLENGE WITH THAT
AND AND AND AND WE CAN CAL
SAVERS.
I THINK THIS DOES KIND OF TAKE
AWAY FROM THEIR OPPORTUNITIES
THAT ARE PROVIDED THERE FOR OUR
OUR WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA THAT
DID IS WE KNOW OF INCREASINGLY
DON'T HAVE DON'T HAVE THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES. FOR FOR PLANNING
AND AND PUTTING MONEY AWAY FOR
RETIREMENT SUFFICIENT A FEW OF
THOSE THINGS YEAH.
YEAH I THINK COUPLE THINGS YOU
KNOW I DON'T HAVE A CALPERS
RETIREMENT THAT I'M CONCERNED
WHEN I LOOK.
THERE ARE CAL STIRS.
AND WHEN THEY SAY THEY'LL BE.
ACHIEVING THEIR FULL FUNDING AND
THIRTY TWO YEARS FROM NOW WHICH
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE.
AND UP UNTIL NOW -- IT HAS BEEN
AROUND VERY WELL I MEAN.
YOU KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENT THINK
TANKS OUT THERE THAT SAYS THEIR
X. AMOUNT AND DEBT -- ANOTHER
ONE I THINK IT WAS A THINK TANK
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF BOSTON
SAID IF YOU DID ACCOUNTING
PROCEDURES LIKE YOU'RE REALLY
SUPPOSED TO THEIR OVER A
TRILLION IN DEBT SO.
THOSE THINGS CONCERNED ME YOU
KNOW A AT IN MY JOB AS I WANT TO
PROTECT OVER THE SERVICE AND
SOME OF THE COMMENTS BACK THERE
WERE KIND OF RIDICULOUS THAT I
WANT TO TAKE SAVINGS AWAY FROM
PEOPLE.
I'M JUST SAYING THEY NEED TO
HAVE AN OPT IN NATION IS IT'S
EASIER OFTEN AND IS OPT OUT
THROUGH THAT SYSTEM SO NO ONE
WANTS TAKE THEM AWAY.
OR THE WORD DIGNITY IS BACK
THERE THAT'S WHY I'M HERE IS
STRICTLY TRYING TO PROTECT OVER
THIS BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THE WAY --
THEIR MONEY HAS BEEN MANAGE YOU
TALK ABOUT THE ONE THAT TEN YEAR
TREASURY THE REASON THAT IS A
GOOD ONE OUT SMALLS ONE OF THE
MOST STABLE ONES THAT'S THE ONE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONCE THE
PRIVATE COMPANIES TO USE BECAUSE
IT SEEMS TO BE.
THE MOST LEVEL SO EVERYTHING
I'VE DONE HERE IS IS IS TRY TO
PLACE LAYERS OF PROTECTION --
FOR OUR POLICE AND OUR FIRE --
BUT AGAIN YOU KNOW IT IT'S IT'S
FUNNY BECAUSE I REMEMBER
SPEAKING TO SOMEONE I BELIEVE IT
WAS SOME CALPERS COULD HAVE BEEN
CAL STIRS A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
AND THEY SAID THEY'RE CONFIDENT
WITHIN THIRTY YEARS OF THE FULLY
FUNDED AND I SAID WELL ONCE
MAJORITY ARE PEOPLE GOING TO
RETIRE THEY SAID THE NEXT EIGHT
TO TEN YEARS I SAID HOW YOU CAN
BE DOING THAT.
THEY'RE NOT SO -- IF I REMEMBER
IT AT DINNER ONE NIGHT I THINK
YOU WERE THERE.
TO GOVERNOR BROWN IF I REMEMBER
HIS COMMENTS CORRECTLY -- HE
SAID FOR THOSE OF US WHO MAY BE
HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS
WHEN THAT NEXT BIG RECESSION
COMES HE SAID AND AGAIN I I
THINK THIS IS HIGHER RECALL IT.
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE UP
PENSION SALAMI SO THAT'S ALL
LOOK AT PHAM -- IF THEY DON'T
WANT TO BE PROTECTED THAT SAW.
ENOUGH NO SWEAT OFF FOR ME I
JUST I'M DOING THIS FOR THE
PLEASED TO WORK.
FOR A LIVING BECAUSE I AM
CONCERNED LOOKING AT THEIR
FUTURE PENSIONS.
THAT'S MY WHOLE REASON AND
MOTIVATION FOR THE BILL NOT TO
TRY.
TO BROCK ANYBODY'S ABOUT.
THANK YOU CENTER WERE OF THE
SENATOR PAN QUESTION.
KAMALA JUST STAY AT THE BRIEF
COMMENT AND YOU KNOW APPRECIATE
US THAT -- SEVERAL SENTIMENTS
YEAH WE WORKED TOGETHER ON THE
PURSE COMMITTEE AND FRAZIER -- I
WOULD MAKE NOTE TO THAT -- BOTH --
PENSION FUNDS -- FIELD DAY DAY
MADE THEY MADE HARD DECISIONS --
FOR TO BE SURE THAT -- THE
RETURNS WERE ACTUALLY REFLECT --
THEIR PROTECT THEIR PROJECTIONS
REFLECT THE ACTUAL RETURNS -- WE
LOWERED THE DISCOUNT RATE FROM
SEVEN POINT.
527% -- THAT MEANT THAT.
SCHOOL DISTRICTS LOCALITIES HAD
TO INCREASE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.
I WOULD MAKE NOTE AND CERTAINLY
THIS IS NOT THE BEST COMPARISON
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAND --
FOR INDEX -- IF YOU GO ALL THE
WAY BACK.
EVEN IF YOU INCLUDE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION -- AND AGAIN WE DON'T.
BUT ALL OUR MONEY INTO EQUITIES --
AND INTO THE SB FIVE HUNDRED BUT
THAT RETURN HAS -- IS --
GENERALLY DAN ABOUT -- NOW 9% SO
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A MIX RIGHT
AND AND DID YOU WANT TO DO THE
RIGHT ASSET ALLOCATION SO FORTH.
SO I I DO THINK THAT USING AT
TEN YEAR TREASURY RATE IS IS.
IS IS A BIT LOW AND NOT THE MOST.
ACTOR WAY OF DOING IT BUT
CERTAINLY YOU KNOW I MEAN THAT
THIS IS A JUDGMENT TERMS IF.
YOU COULD GO FOR VERY LOW RETURN
AND SAY THAT WE HAVE TO JACK UP
CONTRIBUTIONS TO KEEP OUR
PROMISES BUT I I WOULD HOPE THAT
WE WOULD.
SEEK TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE
REFLECTIVE OF OF WHAT WITH.
THAT THE MARKETS REALLY ARE
BEHAVING.
AND THE OTHER I THINK THE OTHER
RIGHT AWAY REQUEST THAT WE'RE
NOT.
MANDATING A USED OUT AND WE'RE
JUST SAYING IT'S A GOOD GUY TO
GO WELL I I I WOULD I GUESS I
WOULD.
BEG TO DIFFER SO THAT'S THAT'S
WHAT I'M SAYING.
AND ALSO I I WOULD SAY IS THAT
THE RESEARCH ON ON RETIREMENT --
TERMS OPT IN OPT OUT FOR CAL
SAVERS IS IS PRETTY STRONG AND
WE'VE WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS.
IN TERMS OF HAVING AN OPT IN --
ATION OPT OUT IS -- GOING TO
HAVE A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF
PARTICIPATION AND ACTUALLY IF
YOU TALK TO YOU.
KNOW YOU TALK TO SOMEONE ABOUT
FINANCIAL COUNSELING.
THEY THEY TELL YOU TO TRY TO PUT
ON AUTO PAY IT SERVICE ON SADDAM
VAST BECAUSE AND THE IT BECAUSE
YOU SHOULD PAY YOURSELF FIRST I
MEAN A PRACTICALLY EVERY.
EVERY FINANCIAL ADVICE THING
I'VE SEEN HAS AS THE DOW THAT'S
CREDIBLE AS SAID THAT THE AND
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
CENTER SYSTEM BASED ON THE BEST
EVIDENCE AND AND PEOPLE CAN OPT
OUT OF THAT ONE THAT'S THE THING
IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S AN EXIT IS
AN OPT -- BUT I I HOPE THAT WE
TRY TO FLY THE BEST EVIDENCE WE
HAVE TO TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO
FINANCIAL SECURITY.
I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO
TRY TO ACHIEVE I THINK ALL OF US
HERE AS WELL -- SO OBVIOUSLY I'M
NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY -- BUT I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR EFFORTS THANK YOU THANK YOU
THANK YOU SENATOR PAN -- THE
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS.
SEEING NONE OF IT IN THE OTHERS.
I THOUGHT YOUR YOUR YOUR
SENTIMENTS IN I THINK THE GOAL
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE I
THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALL.
HOPEFUL FOR WISHING FOR AND I
THINK IT'S JUST THE PATH THAT --
HAS BEEN DESCRIBED HERE IS A
LITTLE CHALLENGING FORTUNATELY
FOR ME TO SUPPORT AND SO
UNFORTUNATE I WON'T BE ABLE TO
DO THAT TODAY SENATOR OR I
UNDERSTAND.
YEAH YEAH LOOK AT I WASN'T A
100% CONFERENCE THIS BILL IS
GOING TO GET OUT HERE AND HELP
[inaudible]
BUT BUT I JUST STATUS AS IT IS
MY CLOTHES IN HAND AND WILL WILL
MOVE ON YEAH MY MOTIVATION LOOK
AT LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS -- I
THINK THEY'RE IN.
SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE
WAY I UNDERSTAND THEIR
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE IS AND
ALWAYS LIKE.
YOU KNOW THE WAY.
PEOPLE DO IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
SO I THINK THEIR PROBLEMS ARE.
ARE GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE AND
AGAIN I THINK IF WE HAVE A
RECESSION COMING UP.
THAT'S GOING TO REALLY PUT A
DAMPER NEW THINGS AND EVEN.
I THINK PUT -- TO PENSIONS IN
DANGER SO THAT WOULD THAT'S MY
MOTIVATION.
AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
IN A WORLD IS THERE A MOTION IS
NOT A MOTION I DON'T THINK
THERE'S NO REPUBLICANS I WOULD
BIG A COURTESY MOTION FOR YOU IF
YOU'D LIKE.
SENATE LIKE TO I'D APPRECIATE
THAT SIR THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO
MOVE THE GENTLEMAN THAT Q. -- WE
HAVE A MOTION. TO PASS TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
WE CAN GET IN AFRICA OKAY -- I
CAN PUT [inaudible]
MOTION RIGHT [inaudible]
YEAH.
MOTION IS DEPRESSING
PERFORATIONS HILL NO HILL NUMBER
OF AYE MORRELL AYE JACKSON.
NO MITCHELL NO OKAY [inaudible]
NO.
HEY GUYS I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME
WILL BE THE ROLE BUT FOR SENATOR
JACKSON AND IF IF THE BILL FAILS
WOULD YOU LIKE RECONSIDERATION I
WOULD.
THANK YOU SIR WHO GRANTED
WITHOUT OBJECTION THANK YOU.
SENATOR WIENER GOOD GOOD --
MORNING STILL IS MOVING TO ITEM
NUMBER ONE WE'RE GOING.
BACKWARDS BUT NOT IN.
BUT IN SPIRIT SB.
ONE FORTY TWO THE TITLE OF THE
TWO ONE FOUR TWO EARLIER PLEASE
PROCEED.
THE FORTY TWO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH MISTER CHAIRMAN AND THANK
YOU DURING YOUR COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING WITH US.
ON THIS BILL WHICH CAME BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE WAS PASSED OUT.
LAST YEAR -- BEFORE THE GOVERNOR
SADLY VETOED IT -- AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEES --
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR GOOGLE
REGARDING THE DEPLETION OF THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION -- AND
THE OTHER TECHNICAL --
AMENDMENTS TO THIS WILL BE A A
PAGO ENFORCEMENT KIND OF
SITUATION -- SO -- COLLIE SENATE
BILL ONE FOR YOU TO WILL ENSURE
THAT.
NEW MOTHERS ARE ABLE.
TO RETURN TO WORK AND TO EXPRESS --
MILK AT WORK -- AND NOT HAVE TO
MAKE THE CHOICE BETWEEN BREAST
FEEDING -- IN A BABY -- AND
WORKING.
THAT IS ACTUALLY SO WE SHOULD
NOT BE IMPOSING ON A NEW MOTHERS
ANYA UNFORTUNATELY -- WE ARE
EFFECTIVELY IMPOSING NOT CHOICE --
WHEN WE HAVE OUR PLACES OF
EMPLOYMENT TO DO NOT HAVE?
A APPROPRIATE AND PRIVATE AND
CLEAN -- LOCATIONS -- FOR
EXPRESSING BREAST MILK -- FAMILY
FROM THE WORK PLACES ARE
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR MANY
REASONS INCLUDING ACHIEVING.
EQUITY IN THE WORKPLACE.
WHEN -- WE DO CREATED
AFFECTIVELY INCENTIVES FOR
MOTHERS NOT TO RETURN TO WORK OR
TO TAKE.
LONGER LEAVES AND THEY MIGHT
OTHERWISE WANT TO DO -- BAND UP
FALLING BEHIND AND PAY EQUITY
AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITY.
IN THE WORKPLACE AND UP
SUFFERING.
AS A RESULT WE NEED TO REMOVE
BARRIERS AND WE'VE.
BEEN DOING GOOD WORK IN THIS
LEGISLATURE TO REMOVE THOSE
BARRIERS.
WE KNOW THAT MANY WOMEN ARE NOT
ABLE -- TO EXPRESSED BREAST MILK
A WORK -- BECAUSE THERE SIMPLY
ISN'T APPROPRIATE A LOCATION --
WE PASSED A GOOD PIECE OF
LEGISLATION LAST YEAR THAT I CO
AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF
THE MOMENT TO MAKE.
TO MAKE A CRYSTAL CLEAR --
THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO
PROVIDE SOME WITH SPACE NOT A
TOILET.
YOU ALSO HAVE TO YOU CAN'T FORCE
WOMEN TO EXPRESS SMOKE IN THE
RESTAURANT NOT WAS AN IMPORTANT
STEP -- AND WE NOW NEED TO SET
BROADER OUR STANDARDS AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LIMóN IS A CO
AUTHOR.
OF THIS BILL AS WELL.
WE KNOW THAT -- FOR PARTICULARLY
LOWER WAGE -- WORKING WOMEN --
THE BEST CHOICES PARTICULARLY --
DIFFICULT -- AND SO THERE ARE
ALSO -- MAJOR EQUITY ISSUES HERE --
IN TERMS OF HIGHER INCOME -- NEW
MOTHERS AND LOWER INCOME AND
LOWER WAGE WORKERS NEW MOTHERS --
WHEN -- WOMEN -- ARE -- FACED
WITH THE CHOICE OF EITHER NOT
WORKING -- OR BREASTFEEDING
THEIR CHILD AND IF THEY CHOOSE.
TO RETURN TO WORK BECAUSE I HAVE
TO THAT MEANS THAT THAT CHILD --
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE
FORMULA WHICH IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
AND NOT IDEAL IN TERMS OF HAVING --
THE HEALTHIEST POSSIBLE CHILD.
THIS BILL SETS -- BASIC
ACHIEVABLE STANDARDS -- IT --
CONTAINS MANY OF THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE NEGOTIATED WITH THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY -- LAST YEAR.
IT REQUIRES A A PRIVATE SPACE --
FOR EXPRESSION BREAST MILK
INCLUDING A TABLE AND A CHAIR
AND A POWER SOURCE.
NEEDS TO BE A REFRIGERATOR AND
SINK WITH RUNNING WATER CLOSE BY
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACTLY IN
THAT ROOM BUT IT HAS TO BE
ACCESSIBLE -- AND WE ALSO
PROVIDE.
SIGNIFICANT FLEXIBILITY
INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT
IT COULD BE A MULTI PURPOSE ROOM --
AS LONG AS EXPRESSING BREAST
MILK IS AN ACTIVITY THAT TAKES
PRIORITY THERE.
HOW WE GRANT SPECIAL FLEXIBILITY
FOR EMPLOYERS WITH FEWER --
EMPLOYEES IN TERMS OF SEEKING
EXEMPTIONS OF THERE'S A HARDSHIP --
AND THEY'RE ALSO -- NUMBER OF A
SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS THAT WE
NEGOTIATED LAST YEAR.
IN TERMS OF MULTI TENANT
BUILDINGS -- BEING ABLE TO
POTENTIALLY SHARE -- SPACE SOME
MEN ARE NOT A RECENT -- OFFICE
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN --
SPECIAL -- PROVISIONS -- FOR
QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION SITES
UNDERSTAND THAT IS DIFFERENT
THAN OFFICE SETTING.
WE WORKED ON A SPECIAL APPROACH
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL.
SECTOR -- BECAUSE AGAIN IT'S NOT.
ALWAYS THE SAME -- AND ALSO --
GAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO HAVE
TEMPORARY.
SPACES BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE AND
THIS IN A SMALL STORE A VERY
SMALL OFFICE -- YOU MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO DEDICATE A ROOM -- SO WE
WORKED VERY HARD LAST YEAR TO
TRY TO CREATE FLEXIBILITY.
AND THAT REMAINS IN THE BILL --
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK OPERATOR
AYE VOTE.
AND WITH ME TODAY ARE CHEN AYE
GEHRY FROM -- LEGALLY AT WORK --
ROBBINS AUSTELL FROM CALIFORNIA
BREASTFEEDING COALITION AND
CURRENT FOR A LEAVE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA WITH ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH SENATOR
WINNER OF FIRST WITNESS WHO
WOULD LIKE.
TO IN ORDER TO HANDLE IT WILL
HAVE A KNEE I'M JENNA GARY I'M A
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT LEGAL
AID AT WORK OR NON PROFIT --
LEGAL INTEREST ORGANIZATION THAT
REPRESENTS AN ADVOCATE FOR THE
RIGHTS OF LOW INCOME WORKERS.
SO I'M HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY
AS A CO SPONSOR IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB.
ONE FORTY TWO SIMPLY PUT IT SB
ONE FORTY TO ENSURE THAT ALL
LACTATING PARENTS CAN MEET THE
BASIC NEEDS OF THEIR CHILD TO
PROVIDE FOOD.
WE KNOW THAT EXISTING LAW
REQUIRES AN EMPLOYER TO RIDE
REASONABLE BREAK TIME IN A
PRIVATE SPACE THAT'S NOT A
BATHROOM -- SO THAT WOMEN CAN.
PUMP AT WORK BUT THESE VAGUE
REQUIREMENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT
OFFER REAL SUPPORT TO WORKERS
PARTICULARLY LOW WAGE WORKERS.
ACCORDING THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH DATA
A THIRD OF WORKING PARENTS
REPORT THAT THEY HAVE NO
WORKPLACE BREAST FEEDING
SUPPORTS.
AND PARENTS OF THE LOWER
HOUSEHOLD INCOMES ARE LESS
LIKELY TO HAVE THE SUPPORT THAN
THOSE WITH A HIGHER INCOME.
ALTHOUGH ASSEMBLY LIMóN LOW
MOANS BILL FROM LAST YEAR.
THAT MADE STATE LAW CONSISTENT
WITH FEDERAL LAW SUCH THAT IT
CAN'T BE A BATHROOM AS OPPOSED
TO A TOILET STALL IS A GOOD STEP
FORWARD TO IMPROVING SUPPORTS
WITHIN THE WORKPLACE IT SIMPLY
DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.
AND WE HEAR REPORTS OF THIS
EVERY DAY AT LEGAL AID AT WORK
WE HAVE A WORKING FAMILY
HELPLINE WERE HERE FROM ABOUT.
TWO THOUSAND CALIFORNIA WORKERS
EACH YEAR THAT ARE STRUGGLING
WITH ISSUES SUCH AS THIS AND I
JUST WANNA SHARE THE STORY OF
ONE OF OUR CLIENTS OUR CLIENT
WAS A WAITRESS AT A RESTAURANT.
RETURN TO WORK AFTER HAVING HER
CHILD -- THERE IS NO POLICY
GIVEN TO HER SHE IT WAS AFRAID
TO ACTUALLY FINALLY ASKED FOR US
SPACES YOU CAN PUMP THAT WORK
CONTINUE TO BREAST FEED HER
CHILD.
SHE WAS TOLD SHE COULD USE A
STORAGE ROOM THAT DON'T HAVE ANY
PLACE TO SET THAT HAVE A PLACE
BUT THE PUMP IT AND HAVE ACCESS
TO ELECTRICITY.
SHE HAD TO GET AN EXTENSION CORD
SO SHE COULD ACTUALLY PLUG HER
PUMP IN AND THEN SHE GOT YELLED
AT BECAUSE EXTENSION CORD WAS IN
THE WAY -- WE TO TRY TO RAISE
THESE CONCERNS WITH HER EMPLOYER
AND FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
THEY GAVE HER NO SUPPORT AND
THEY BASICALLY TOLD HER OPTION
WAS TO STOP BREAST FEEDING OR TO
STOP WORKING.
AND THIS IS JUST ONE STORY THAT
WE HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND
SO SB ONE FORTY TWO CAN FIX THIS
AND CAN MAKE IT A REALITY.
THAT WE CAN FEEL SUPPORTED IN
THE CONTINUE TO BREAST FEED
[inaudible]
I'M.
SO SB ONE FORTY TO ENSURE IS
THAT ALL EMPLOYEES NOT JUST HIGH
WAGE EARNERS NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO
WORK IN OFFICES CAN HAVE THE
SUPPORTS ENTITY TO BREAST FEED.
SO WITH THAT I JUST ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU CHAIR HILL AND MEMBERS
THE CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING
COALITION IS PLEASED TO BE A CO
SPONSOR OF SB.
ONE FOUR TWO THIS BILL CAN HELP
TRANSFORM THE WORKPLACE CULTURE
THAT IS MORE SUPPORTIVE TOWARDS
THE NEEDS OF LACKEY EIGHTEEN
EMPLOYEES.
THE WORK FORCE HAS DRAMATICALLY
EVOLVED OVER THE PAST FIFTY
YEARS MOTHERS WITH YOUNG
CHILDREN ARE THE FASTEST GROWING
SEGMENT OF THE U. S. WORK FORCE.
AND MOST WANT TO BREAST FEED IN
CALIFORNIA 94% OF NEW PARENTS
START OF BREAST FEEDING IN THE
HOSPITAL BUT AT THREE MONTHS
POSTPARTUM ONLY 29% ARE FEEDING
ONLY BREAST MILK TO THEIR BABIES.
ALL MAJOR AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION'S URGE THAT INFANTS
ONLY BE FED BREASTMILK FOR THE
FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE.
IF YOU CAN SEE AT THREE MONTHS
OF AGE MOST INFANTS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE NOT BEING FED
ONLY BREAST MILK.
AT THREE MONTHS OF AGE A TIME
WHEN NEW PARENTS ARE RETURNING
TO WORK THE WORKPLACE GREATLY
IMPACTS PARENTS ABILITY TO
CONTINUE BREASTFEEDING.
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT
THAT THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING
STANDARDS CODE IS IMPROVED TO
REQUIRE LACTATION SPACE FOR SOME
NEW BUILDINGS AND WHEN THERE ARE
TEN IN PROVE MEANT. FOR CERTAIN
BUILDING CLASSIFICATIONS WELL
WITH THE DRAMATIC INCREASE OF
WOMEN WITH YOUNG CHILDREN IN THE
WORK FORCE IT IS TIME THAT WE
DESIGN AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
MEETS THE NEEDS OF LACTATING
EMPLOYEES.
EMPLOYERS CAN EXPECT TO SEE A
RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT
LACTATION SUPPORT IN THE
WORKPLACE.
HAS BEEN FOUND TO IMPROVE
PRODUCTIVITY BILLS EMPLOYEE
MORALE INCREASES EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY WHICH HELPS RECRUIT AND
RETAIN GOOD EMPLOYEES AND
DECREASES HEALTHCARE COSTS AND
ABSENTEEISM DUE TO ILLNESS.
WE NEED TO IMPROVE WORKING
CONDITIONS FOR LACTATING PARENTS
AND INCREASE BREAST FEEDING
RATES PARENTS NEED CRITICAL
CULTURAL AND SOCIAL CHANGE
BREAST FEEDING IS AN IMPORTANT
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.
AND WE NEED WORK PLACES IS TO
TAKE THE LACTATING PARENTS NEEDS
INTO ACCOUNT AND I ASK FOR YOUR
ARRIVAL THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND
IF YOU COULD IF.
THANK YOU.
KAREN FARLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
WITH ASSOCIATION AND WE SUPPORT
THIS BILL AND WE HOPE YOU WILL
ALSO.
HAVE ONE IMPORTANT DATA POINT
FOR YOU 50% OF THE PERSON
CALIFORNIA THOSE KIDS
PARTICIPATE IN WORK AND MAJORITY
THOSE MOMS ARE RETURNING TO WORK
OUTSIDE THE HOME.
AND THIS BILL IS AN IMPORTANT
STEP FOR THE EFFORTS THAT WE'VE
MADE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS TO
IMPROVE THE WORK SITE SO PLEASE
SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OTHERS
WORKING PLEASE COME FORWARD AND
RENTS MENTORING THE AMERICAN
COLLEGE OF OBGYN STRYCHNINE IN
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
CAN WAY ON BEHALF CALIFORNIANS
LIMóN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ARIEL VII'S I'M A RECENT A
PUBLIC HEALTH GRADUATE AT THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHRIDGE AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL.
THANK YOU WE SHOULD KILL HER
BARE ARM ALSO RECENT GRADUATE
FROM CAL STATE NORTHRIDGE ON
PUBLIC HEALTH AND I SUPPORT THIS
THANK YOU.
MY ENGRAM ACLU OF CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR COMMENTS ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT.
SEE NO -- ONE IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION PLEASE COME
FORWARD [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THE MORNING LORD IS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY
HERE TODAY -- AS SENATOR WIENER
MENTION THIS WAS A BILL LAST
YEAR SB -- NINE THIRTY SEVEN AND
LAST YEAR THERE WERE SOME
ADDITIONAL -- AND THE POINTS
THAT WERE AMENDED OUT THAT ARE
NOW BACK IN THIS BILL BUT WE
ALSO -- APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE
NOW BEEN TAKEN -- GOVERNOR BROWN
VETO THE NEARER VERSION OF THIS
BILL LAST YEAR AD SIGNED INTO
LAW IN NINETEEN SEVENTY SIX LOW
MOANS BILL WHICH THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY WORK DILIGENTLY WITH A
MOAN ON THAT BILL AND SUPPORTED
THAT BILL WHEN HEADED TO THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
AND BEFORE THE INK IS BARELY DRY
ON THAT ISSUE NOW WE'RE NOW
EXPANDING LACTATION
ACCOMMODATIONS AGAIN AND THAT'S
OUR CONCERN IS THAT THAT HASN'T
EVEN GONE INTO REALLY INTO
AFFECT IT'S ONLY BEEN IN EFFECT
FOR A COUPLE MONTHS NOW.
AND HERE WE'RE EXPANDING THE
ISSUE -- WITH SOME VERY
BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS ON
EMPLOYERS AND SOME OF THIS IS
GOING TO GET INTO THE NITTY
GRITTY AND BE QUITE BORING FOR
EVERYONE BUT I DO WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT IT ONE OF THE ISSUES
AS WE APPRECIATE THE REMOVAL OF
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION BUT
THE REQUIREMENT FALLS.
UNDER OF COLD LABOR CODE TWO TWO
SIX AND THE LABOR CODE TWO TWO
SIX VIOLATION IS CONSIDERED BY
THE COURTS A WEIGHT SO YOU GET
THE TWO TWO SIX PENALTY OR
VIOLATION WAY -- WAGE AND THEN
ON TOP OF THAT YOU STILL GET THE
PENALTIES UNDER THE PRIVATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT AND THIS
BECOMES ASTRONOMICAL FOR
EMPLOYERS TO HAVE TO PAY MAKE
THESE PAYOUTS.
SO ESSENTIALLY IN IN OUR VIEW
IT'S A DUPLICATE PENALTY EVEN
THOUGH THE COURT SEE IT AS AN
ADDITIONAL WAGE FOR THE EMPLOYEE
AND THAT TWO TWO SIX IS STILL
PART OF THE TWO TWO SIX
VIOLATION IS STILL PART OF THIS.
BILL ADDITIONALLY THE BUILDING
CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE
TAKEN OUT LAST YEAR THAT ARE
BACK IN -- WILL APPROXIMATELY
COST EMPLOYERS THIRTY THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED ANDFIVE THOUSAND
AND EXISTING BUILDING AND
500-021-4000 PER YEAR IN ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE ON THAT SPACE OR
LOSS OF SPACE IT CAN'T BE USED
FOR OTHER ISSUES.
AND THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE
IDEA THAT NOT A EVERY -- OFFICE
NOT EVERY BUILDING IS GOING TO
HAVE A WOMAN THAT MIGHT NEED
THAT SPACES A LACTATION
ACCOMMODATION -- ADDITIONALLY
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TECHNICAL
ISSUES THE AUTOMATICALLY SET
EMPLOYERS UP TO FAILURE -- I
KNOW SOME OF THOSE WERE TAKEN
TODAY BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I DO
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THE
SPACE IF IT'S UTILIZED BY A IS A
COMMON AREA UTILIZED.
THE AND AS SUCH AS A BREAK ROOM
IT HAS TO TAKE PRIORITY BUT
EMPLOYERS HAVE TO PROVIDE BREAK
ROOM -- AND PLACES FOR EMPLOYEES
TO TAKE THEIR BREAKS SO THE
EMPLOYER WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IN
VIOLATION OF THE BILL IF THEY
HAVE A LOCKED IN WITH MY MOTHER
THAT NEEDS TO UTILIZE THE BREAK
FROM FOR LACTATION PURPOSES BUT
THEN ALSO HAS EMPLOYEES THAT YOU
NEED TO UTILIZE THAT SAME SPACE.
FOR BREAKS SO FEW OF THOSE
ISSUES ARE THE REASONS WHY WE
ARE OPPOSED TO THIS BILL AND WE
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY BUT
UNFORTUNATE GETS PART AT THIS
TIME THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
OKAY.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND LET
ME JUST -- ADD WE DID WORK
DILIGENTLY WAS SENATOR.
A WIENER LAST YEAR ON HIS SB
NINE THIRTY SEVEN DID NOT COME
TO A FINAL AGREEMENT AND DID
SUPPORT TO ACTIVELY -- MISLED
MOANS A. B. -- NINETEEN SEVENTY
SIX I THINK YOUR ANALYSIS AS WAS
DONE THOROUGHLY AND SENATOR
JACKSON'S BILL IS -- REALLY SET
FORTH THE ISSUES AND REYES --
THE CONCERNS THAT I THINK ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR THIS COMMITTEE
ON PAGES -- THREE BOTTOM OF
THREE AND SIX WHICH IS YOU KNOW
ORDER DEFICIENCIES IN NEED TO BE
RECTIFIED TODAY.
AND TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION
IN THE BROADER DISCUSSIONS
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE
GOVERNOR'S.
A SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION THE PAID
FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAM.
LET ME ADD ONE ADDITIONAL POINT
AND FROM HER FIRST THANKS
SENATOR WIENER FOR REMOVING THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION HOWEVER
I WOULD YOU CARE COULD I GET
CLARIFICATION ON HOW MY BILL
CERTAINLY AS PART OF THIS
DISCUSSION.
I SAID THE IN REFERENCE TO YOUR
THAT WAS ON THE ANALYSIS THAT
WAS THOROUGHLY DONE.
THIS ANALYSIS JUST LIKE ON YOUR
BILL ALL ALL I SEE I'M SORRY I'M
I THOUGHT I MISS IT WAS A ON
THERE WAS A COMPLEMENT.
TO COMMITTEE STAFF I APOLOGIZE
WELL I COMMITTEE OKAY TO OF
COURSE THANK YOU -- LET ME JUST
NOTE THOUGH WITH THE REMOVAL OF
THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AS
MISS CURTIS DID SPECIFIED
BECAUSE IT IS AN AMENDMENT IN
THE LABOR CODE IT IS SUBJECT TO
PAGO SO. ONE WAS TAKEN BUT ONE
IS STILL THERE IF YOU WILL IN
TERMS OF PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY ON THE TOP
OF PAGE FOUR THERE'S A
DISCUSSION ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS
AND THE UNDUE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION --
AS SENATOR WIENER KNOWS FROM
LAST YEAR WE WOULD ADVOCATE FOR
THAT TO BE APPLICABLE ACROSS THE
BOARD NO ISSUE IF FOR EXAMPLE
THIS STATE THE RELEVANT STATE
AGENCY.
OR TO CERTIFY THAT IN OTHER
WORDS THAT THE EMPLOYER WOULD
HAVE TO GO AND PETITION. FOR
THAT UNDE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION
RATHER THAN SIMPLY CLAIM IT BY
THEMSELVES BUT WE BELIEVE IT
SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL
EMPLOYERS NOT JUST SMALL
BUSINESS THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHERS IN OPPOSITION.
SEEING NO ONE BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE.
FOR YES SENATOR PAN.
THANK YOU SIR WIENER FOR RAIN
THIS BILL FOR CERTAINLY WE WANNA
TRY TO ENCOURAGE -- BREAST
FEEDING AND I THINK THE
CONNECTION WITH -- PARENTAL
LEAVE IS THAT IDEALLY THAT --
THE PARENT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK
TO WORK TOO EARLY BUT SAME TIME
SINCE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PROMOTE
BREAST FEEDING FOR ABOUT A YEAR
WE'RE NOT GIVING A YEAR'S WORTH
OF PARENTAL LEAVE WITH.
THE ON THE PARTITION SPACES.
BUT ONE THING I DID WANT TO
CLEAR FIVE BECAUSE OF THE SURE
FROM THE ANALYSIS IS AND I THINK
THIS ISSUE CAME UP THE LAST TIME
YOU BROUGHT THIS BILL.
FOR SO FOR AN EXISTING PLAYERS
IN AN EXISTING BUILDING --
BOMBINGS PRETTY EXPENSIVE TO
BUILD SO THE QUESTION WAS IS
THAT AND BUT IT'S AT THE SPACE
THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH.
THE STANDARDS WHICH WOULD ALSO
INCLUDE PLENTY SO I KNOW A LOT
OF OFFICES.
THE ONLY PLACES THEY DO HAVE
PLUMBING OUR BATHROOM.
OR THEY MAY HAVE A KITCHEN OR
SOME THING OF SOME SORT AND
THAT'S THE BREAK ROOM ISSUE.
AS A AND A AND THAT SIDE SO I
CLARIFIED THAT.
DO YOU NEED TO HAVE CLIMBING IN
THE VERY ROOM THAT YOU'RE USING
FOR LACTATION -- OR DO YOU JUST
NEED A PLUMBING ACCESSIBLE BUT
THEY DON'T NEED TO BE PHYSICALLY
IN THE SAME SPACE BECAUSE I
THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE
CHALLENGE FOR MANY BUSINESS.
BEFORE THE REFRIGERATION AND FOR
THE RUNNING WATER IT DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE IN THE SAME SPACE IT
HAS TO BE ACCESSIBLE -- SO
THAT'S AND I BELIEVE THAT'S
EXPLICIT IN THERE THAT'S NOT
HAVE TO BE WITH IN THE SAME ROOM --
AND IN ADDITION -- THERE IS A
THE SUBSECTION THE TALKS ABOUT
OPERATIONAL -- FLEXIBILITY
BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THERE
COULD BE SOME SITUATIONS THAT
ARE CHALLENGING FOR THAT'S OUR
INTENT -- WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO
MAKE THIS INCREDIBLY HARD TO
COMPLY WITH WANT FLEXIBILITY AND
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN THE
SAME OKAY ALL RIGHT IT WASN'T
CLEAR FROM ANALYSIS I FIGHT IN
DEL INTO THE BILL DETAILED
ENOUGH TO FIND OUT LANGUAGE
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SENATOR PAN OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
FROM.
BILL.
INTERJECTION THE THING VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ANY --
IS THERE A MOTION TO SUPPORT I
AB I'VE.
AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE
AMENDMENT SENATOR WINNER.
THAT I THINK THE COMMITTEE DOES
AS WELL -- AND WE DID HEAR A
NUMBER OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE
STAKEHOLDERS AT A WE'LL BE
PROVIDING THIS ACCOMMODATION TO
TO A LARGE EXTENT SO I HOPE.
THAT YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO A YOU
KNOW THE BILL LAST YEAR OF THE
SEASON ASSEMBLYMEMBER LOANS BILL.
WE COULD WORK TO GET THE LITTLE
CLOSER THERE WOULD BE -- I THINK --
HELPFUL AND AND I WANT TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT ON THE FLOOR.
ABOUT HAPPY TO TO HELP TODAY TO
MOVE THAT CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THAT
AND TO PROCESS TO REALLY BE
CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE BILL
THAT'S BEFORE YOU -- MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE OTHER
THAN WHEN WE INTRODUCE A BILL
OTHER THAN THE PR A AND THE
BUILDING CODE SECTION ALL THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE WORKED OUT
WITH THE BUSINESS CAMILLUS TEAR
MY STEP SPENT A LOT OF TIME
WORKING WITH THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY -- AND WE APPRECIATED
THEIR ENGAGE IN WITH US BUT ALL
THE OTHER MOMENTS ARE IN THERE.
THE P. R. IS NOW I'LL WILL I'M
SURE HAVE CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT THE BUILDING CODE -- ISSUE --
BUT WE WE WORKED A LOT
AMENDMENTS WITH -- AND BATTERERS
THAT CONTINUE TO BE AND THIS
BILL I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY
PREFER A NARROWER -- BILL THEY
DON'T WANT ALL THESE ADDITIONAL
SENATOR RESPECT THEIR OPINION ON
THAT AND I I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
KNOW THEY WOULD PREFER THAT NO
ONE BE ABLE TO GO TO CORPS UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCE -- BUT YOU KNOW.
WE WILL OF COURSE CONTINUE TO TO
TALK TO THEM -- BUT THE BILL
NEEDS TO BE WORKABLE AND
ENFORCEABLE THOSE ARE MY BOTTOM
LINES.
THANK YOU SENATOR WHEN I AFFRONT
INTERJECTION JUST BRIEFLY THE
BILL DOES COME TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WILL BE CONTINUING
INTO DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE ISSUES
AT THAT TIME.
THANK YOU.
pMITCHELL.
AND THIS IS -- YOU PASSED THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
[inaudible]
SENATOR HALL.
HILL THE HILL [inaudible]
SORRY [inaudible]
I ALTHOUGH JACKSON.
JACKSON AYE MITCHELL.
MITCHELL I FOUND.
CAN I FOUR VOTES THE BILL IS AT
THE HE CARRY MY CHAD NO THAT'S
OKAY.
I THINK -- WE ARE.
WHAT WE HAVE? ONE SENATOR
JACKSON DIDN'T VOTE.
SENATE.
DELIVERY ON A THIRD YEAH LET'S
HAVE A CLOSER -- ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SB THREE FORTY ONE OF THE
VOTE WAS.
FOR NO VOICE ONE I'M SORRY WISH
BEFORE THERE WAS A ONE ZERO AND
THAT BILL FAILS WITH BUT
RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED
WITHOUT BJECTION -- THAT
CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS OF THE
DAY THE OF THIS HEARING IS
ADJOURNED THANK YOU