ALRIGHT OR 60 SECONDS IS UP.
BECAUSE OF BILL PRESENTATION.
RESPONSIBILITIES WILL BE TURNING
THE GAVEL OVER TO SENATOR
NEWMAN, WHO'S PREPARED. MOST
LIKELY, MOST PREPARED MORE
PREPARED THAN I AM TO SHARE
TODAY. UM TO GET THE MEETING
GOING, SO I WANT TO LET PEOPLE
KNOW THAT'S HAPPENING. WHO IS
PRESIDING AT THE MOMENT? UM AND
WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM. YEAH.
WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND HAVE
THE CONSULTANT DO THAT? LET ME
DO THE PREAMBLE, AND WE'LL DO
THAT. SO GOOD MORNING, THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT IN RETIREMENT
IS NOW IN SESSION. GOOD
AFTERNOON OR GOOD MORNING AS WE
CONTINUE TO TAKE SOME
PRECAUTIONS TO MANAGE OUTGOING
COVID 19 RISK. THE SENATE
CONTINUES TO WELCOME THE PUBLIC
AND HAS PROVIDED ACCESS. TO BOTH
IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE
PARTICIPATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
DUE TO CONSTRAINTS REGARDING THE
LENGTH OF HEARINGS, TECHNOLOGY
CONSIDERATIONS AND CLEANING
PROTOCOLS COMMITTEE CHAIRS MEANS
TO TIME LIMITS ON TESTIMONY.
EACH SIDE WILL BE PERMITTED IN
EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME. LEAD
WITNESSES WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES
FOR EACH WITNESS. AND THERE IS
NO RESERVING TIME FOR OTHER
WITNESSES, ALL OTHERS WISHING TO
TESTIFY MUST LIMIT THEIR
COMMENTS TO THEIR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ON THE
MEASURES FOR THESE WITNESSES,
THERE WILL BE A LIMIT OF 20
MINUTES FOR SUPPORT IN 20
MINUTES FOR OPPOSITION FOR
INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC COMMENTARY, THE
TELECONFERENCE SERVICE THE
PARTICIPANT, TOLL FREE NUMBER
AND ACCESS CODE IS POSTED ON THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. I WILL
ANNOUNCE IT NOW TODAY'S PETITION
NUMBERS 87722681 AGAIN. THAT'S
8772268163 AND THE ACCESS CODE
IS 4777012. THAT'S THREE SEVENS.
I WILL MAINTAIN DECORUM DURING
THE HEARING, AS IS CUSTOMARY IN
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DISRUPTIVE
MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE REMOTE
MEETING SERVICE OR HAVE THEIR
CONNECTIONS MUTED. WE'RE HOLDING
OUR COMMITTEE HEARINGS HERE IN
THE STREET BUILDING. I ASK ALL
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO BE
PRESENT IN ROOM 2200 SO WE CAN
ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM. AND BEGIN
OUR HEARING. WE HAVE 16 BILLS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA BEFORE WE HEAR
PRESENTATION ON THE BILLS. LET'S
ESTABLISH A QUORUM CONSULTANT.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR
CORTEZ E. ORTEZ E HERE, SENATOR
KOA BOGUE, SENATOR DURAZO DURAZO
HERE, SENATOR LAIRD. SENATOR
NEWMAN NEWMAN. HERE WE HAVE A
QUORUM. OU'RE LEAVING, TOO. IN
A LITTLE WHILE. OKAY THAT'S GOOD
. VERY GOOD. I APPRECIATE IT'S A
BUSY DAY HERE IN SACRAMENTO. LET
US START WITH THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. I'D LIKE TO TAKE UP
THE CONSENT ITEM. THERE'S ONE
ITEM ON CONSENT. IT'S A B 24 31.
DO WE HAVE EMOTION? THE MOTIONS
MADE BY SENATOR DURAZO
CONSULTANT PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. FILE
ITEM NUMBER 15 ON CONSENT,
SENATOR CORTEZ E. SENATOR KOA
BOGUE, SENATOR DURAZO H
NATOR LAIRD. SENATOR NEWMAN
NEWMAN, I THAT WAS ON CALL. VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW
LET'S HEAR FROM OUR FIRST
AUTHOR. FIRST WE HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHEN,
PRESENTING A B 24 93. WELCOME
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. PLEASE
PROCEED. 83. A B 24 93 WILL
ENSURE THE FINANCIAL SECURITY
RETIRED SWORN PEACE OFFICERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS WHO HAVE SPENT
THEIR ENTIRE CAREERS PROTECTING
AND SERVING THROUGH THE COUNTY
EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS OR
A COUNTY. MR TRIBUNE. THE LAWS
THE FINANCIAL LIVELIHOOD
RETIREES IS BEING CHALLENGED BY
THE THREAT OF A SUDDEN CLAWBACK.
WITHIN MY DISTRICT, A CAPTAIN
FROM THE ORANGE SHINY FIRE
AUTHORITY RETIRED DUE TO JOB
RELATED INJURIES IN 2020 AFTER
30 YEARS OF SERVICE. HE RECENTLY
WAS CONTACTED BY THE ORANGE
COUNTY EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS. BETTER KNOWN AS
OFFICERS AND WAS TOLD HE WAS
GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE
SYSTEM SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $31,000
AND TAKE A SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION. THERE'S MONTHLY
RETIREMENT GOING FORWARD. DUE TO
ON CALL PAY BEING DISALLOWED.
FOR DECADES, THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE PAID A NORMAL
CONTRIBUTIONS AND ORANGE COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
WHICH HISTORICALLY INCLUDED ON
CALL PAY AND K NINE HANDLER PAY.
AND JULY 30TH 2020, THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ISSUED
AN OPINION IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS
THE ALAMEDA CASE. IN HIS
DECISION, THE COURT DETERMINED
THAT VOLUNTARY ON CALL PAY WAS
NOT COMPENSATION ER, NABLE AND
NEITHER WAS K NINE HANDLER PAY.
AS A RESULT, POSTER STATED ITS
INTENT TO CLAW BACK ANY PAYMENTS
MADE TO RETIREES FOR ON CALL OR
CANINE HANDLER PAY. RECOVER 1
2023 THE PRESIDENT AND TO REDUCE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS GOING FORWARD
FOR RETIREES, WHICH WILL HAVE
THE EFFECT OF REDUCING SOME
RETIREES MONTHLY PAYMENTS BY
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS RATHER THAN
JUST APPLYING THIS TO NEW
RETIREES. THIS CREATES A
SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP FOR
RETIREES AND BUDGET BASED ON
FIXED INCOME. THE FINANCIAL
LIVELIHOOD OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS
AND PEACE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT BE
DETERMINED BY REPORTING ERROR
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE
EMPLOYEE. MAYBE 24 93 WILL
ENSURE THAT IF A REPORTING ERA
IS TO OCCUR WITH NO FAULT OF THE
EMPLOYEE THAT THE ONUS WILL BE
PLACED UPON THE EMPLOYER TO
ENSURE THAT THESE RETIREMENT
RECEIVE A SMALL PORTION OF THE
FUTURE PENSION AMOUNTS. THAT
THEY WERE SO PROMISED. WE ARE
DETERMINED TO CONTINUE WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THIS BILL
THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE TO FIND A
RESOLUTION FOR THE CONCERNING
PROVISIONS AND THE PROPOSED
AMENDS. THE DAY WITH OUR WITNESS
TESTIMONY WE HAVE HERE TO
TESTIFY. MR DOUG SUBARUS,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND MR
SHANE LEVIN, REPRESENTING THE
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, MR CHEN
. MR WAS THAT WAS A VERY GRAND
ENTRANCE. WELCOME HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THAT ALL WEEK. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS DOUG
SUPERS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS. WE REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE. WE KNOW THERE IS A
LOT OF WORK THAT WE NEED TO
CONTINUE TO DO, BUT WE'RE HOPING
TO GET TO RESOLUTION ON SOME
ISSUES AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO
PROTECT RETIREES AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHEN AH
ILLUMINATED. WE HAVE
FIREFIGHTERS WHO RELY ON A
SECURE RETIREMENT. MANY
FIREFIGHTERS, LIKE OTHER PUBLIC
AND SOME OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
DO NOT GET ACCESS TO SOCIAL
SECURITY WHEN THEY RETIRE. THEY
REALLY RELY ON THEIR PENSION AS
THEIR LOAN SOURCE OF INCOME.
WHEN THEY GET SENT A LETTER AND
TOLD THAT A PIECE OF THEIR
COMPENSATION THAT HAD BEEN
BARGAINED THAT THEY BELIEVED WAS
INCLUDED IN THE RETIREMENT IS
DISALLOWED AND THEY HAVE TO PAY
BACK WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
PAID AND TAKE A SIGNIFICANT
PRODUCTION AND THE RETIREMENT
GOING FORWARD. IT CAN BE LIFE
ALTERING. AND SO THIS BILL
REALLY SEEKS TO HELP TRY TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THAT
DISALLOWED COMPENSATION REQUIRE
THE EMPLOYER TO COVER SOME OF
THAT MITIGATION. AND ALLOW THE
RETIRING TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT
WITH, I GUESS LESS DISRUPTION OF
THEIR LIFE IN TERMS OF THEIR
ONGOING INCOME. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING ON THE AMENDMENTS. AS
I NOTED IN THE BEGINNING, WE'D
LIKE YOUR VOTE, PLEASE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR
LEVINE. WELCOME. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR MEMBER, SHANE LEVIN ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION.
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS. TAKEN APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
OF THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT ON
THIS. WE'VE SPENT HOURS ON THIS
BILL. THE CHAIR STAFF, MR
SUPERS. SO THANK YOU TO
EVERYBODY. IT'S A WORK IN
PROGRESS STILL WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON IT. BUT IT'S A
COMPLICATED ISSUE AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE RETIREES LOSE MONEY THEY
THOUGHT THEY JUSTLY EARNED, SO
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS
RESOLVE THESE ISSUES AND
APPRECIATE IT. I VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NOW LET'S MOVE
TO ANY WITNESSES WISHING TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL
WHO ARE HERE IN ROOM 2200. IF
YOU'D LIKE TO STATE YOUR SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL. HERE AND THERE IS
SEXY NUN. LET'S MOVE TO THE
TELECONFERENCE SERVICE MODERATOR
, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PROMPTLY.
INDIVIDUALS WAITING, TESTIFYING,
SUPPORT OF A B 24 93 WILL BEGIN.
THE ATTUNED ANYBODY ON THE LINE
HAS SUPPORT PRESS ONE, THEN ZERO
AND YOUR TELEPHONE AND AGAIN WE
ASK FOR YOUR NAME, YOUR
AFFILIATION AND YOUR POSITION ON
THE BILL.
IT APPEARS NOBODY HAS TO QUEUE
IT UP IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. LET'S
LET'S COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ROOM FOR TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION
. MY UNDERSTANDINGS. WE HAVE
JEFF NEAL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
HERE AS LEAD OPPOSITION ON THE
BILL. MR NEW WELCOME. MEMBERS
JEFF NEAL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WALL
IT'S REGRETTABLE THAT THE
RETIREES IN QUESTION WILL NOW
BEGIN IN THE PENSION THAT THEY
EXPECTED TO GET WHEN THEY
RETIRED. DOES UNFAIRLY PLACED
THE BURDEN OF PAIN FOR WHAT THE
COURTS WITH THE LEGISLATURE
DECIDED IN THE COURTS AGREED WAS
AN ILLEGAL PENSION AND PUTS THE
ONUS ON THE EMPLOYER TO PAY.
THAT AMOUNT OR PROPORTION OF IT
TO THE RETIREES, EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL.
THIS WILL AMOUNT TO MILLIONS,
PERHAPS TENS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AT A TIME WHEN, WHILE
THE WELL AS WE KNOW THE STATE
REVENUES HAVE BEEN DOING VERY
WELL, REVENUES IN MOST COUNTIES
HAVE STILL NOT RECOVERED. ON A
PER CAPITA BASIS FROM THE GREAT
RECESSION, WHICH AT THIS POINT
WAS 15 YEARS AND TWO RECESSIONS
AGO, SO WE APPRECIATE THE INTENT
OF THE BILL. BUT I MUST
REGRETFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE
IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM
LIKE TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO
ROOM 2200, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR JEAN HURST
HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES
OF CALIFORNIA ALSO OPPOSED TO
THE BILL APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
AND HAVE A COMMITMENT TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON THE
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU, MR
HEARST. NEXT, PLEASE. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR MEMBERS, ERIN AVERY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED IN A LINE.
MY COMMENTS TO MR NEAL'S. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE
WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN PERSON?
HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, SEEN
UNMIS MODERATOR. LET'S GO BACK
TO THE TELECONFERENCE ROOM.
WOULD YOU PLEASE QUÊ ANYBODY
WISHING TO TEST RIGHT IN
OPPOSITION TO A B 24 93? ANYBODY
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL AT
THIS TIME, 10 ON YOUR TELEPHONE
KEYPAD. WE DO HAVE LINE 23
OPPOSITION, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS GOOD
MORNING, PAUL YODA ON BEHALF OF
THE CURRENT COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE
OPPOSITION FROM LINE. 31, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, CLIFF BERG
. AND WE HAVE A SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT. WE
HAVE NO FURTHER OPPOSITION FROM
THE PHONE. THANK YOU AGAIN.
LET'S COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ROOM TO OUR MEMBERS. JENNY
MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ON THE BILL. SENATOR I
JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND I
APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I ARRIVED A
FEW MINUTES LATE. I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE TAKING ALL
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS WILL BE
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED
BY THE COMMITTEE'S CORRECT, OK?
THANK YOU. THAT CORRECT. EXCUSE
ME. UM LET ME REPHRASE THAT. I'M
ACCEPTING THE BOARD'S 12 OR 579,
10, 11 AND 12. OKAY I CAN
CLARIFY THAT THERE HAS BEEN
ONGOING SET OF NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE COMMITTEE AND THE
STAFF OF MR CHEN AND THE
SPONSORS. THEY'RE AGREEING TO
TAKE SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WE HAVE SUGGESTED, AND NOT OTHER
AMENDMENTS, AND WE BOTH AGREED
TO KEEP WORKING ON THIS BILL TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WE'VE HAD
IN SOME OF THOSE, AND SO WE HAVE
AN UNDERSTANDING AND I APOLOGIZE
, SENATOR FOR IF WE HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO GET THAT INFORMATION TO
YOUR YOUR STAFF, BUT WE DO HAVE
AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH
AMENDMENTS THEY'RE TAKING THE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH THEY'RE
NOT. AND WE ALSO HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE ALL
GOING TO WORK VERY HARD TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN WHICH WE
COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT
CENTER AND MY CONFUSION WAS THAT. I HAD HEARD THAT THE CHAIR DID
NOT WANT TO MOVE THE BILL UNLESS
ALL THE AMENDMENTS WERE TAKEN,
AND SO THAT THIS IS THE NEWS TO
ME ON THE PROCESS, NOT WHAT THE
AMENDMENTS WERE. BUT THE FACT
THAT THAT THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES
THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL WORK ON
THE AMENDMENTS OR THE SUBJECTS
OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WEREN'T
TAKEN THEN. I'M GOOD WITH MOVING
TO BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THANK YOU, MR LAIRD FOR
ANTICIPATING MY INPUT, SENATOR
ROSARIO, PLEASE GO AHEAD JUST TO
FOLLOW UP ON THAT, SO THAT MEANS
THAT IN THE PROCESS, THEY WOULD
THEY WOULD BE TAKEN UP IN
JUDICIARY. OKAY YES, THAT'S YOUR
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. SENATOR
YOU GOT MY COMMITMENT FOR THAT,
AND THAT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE
BECAUSE SENATOR DORIS AND I ARE
ON TRADITION VERY. AND SO WE
REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE
POLICE OFFICERS ON THIS, BUT,
YEAH. SHE'S LOOKING AT YOU RIGHT
NOW. YOU HAVE MY UNDYING
COMMITMENT TO THAT SENATOR.
ABSOLUTELY SENATOR LEARNED. WELL
WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF FUN AND%
TRADITION AREA ABOUT THE
DEFINITION OF UNDYING SO THANK
YOU FORWARD TO IT, SENATOR. OKAY
ANY ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHEN. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE AND HAD BEEN
BEFORE YOU JUST MAKE CLEAR THAT
YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING WITH
THE CHAIR WITH THE COMMITTEE
THAT YOU'VE ACCEPTED CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO
PROCEED AND CONTINUE WORKING ON
THE OTHERS THAT ARE STILL OPEN.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS
CORRECT, SENATOR VERY GOOD,
PLEASE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE
JUST ONE AGAIN. THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF. WHO ARE THEIR
HELP IN TERMS OF THIS BILL AND
FINDING A RESOLUTION THIS AND
YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT AS IT
GOES TO THE JUDICIARY THAT WE
WILL BE CONTINUING THAT AS WELL.
SO WITHOUT I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. AND WTH THAT IN
MIND, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE
HAVE HAD A CORNER CALL. SENATOR
LARRY CENTER. LAIRD KNOWS THE
BILL. MADAM CONSULTANT. IF YOU
COULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. FILE
ITEM NUMBER ONE. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS BUT FIRST REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
SENATOR CORTEZ E SENATOR KOA
BOGUE, SENATOR DURAZO. TERRAZZO
I, SENATOR LAIRD LAIRD EYES.
SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN I THAT
BILL IS ON CALL AND CURRENTLY
HAS THREE I VOTES. WE BELIEVE IN
A CALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CHEN. LOOKING FOR AN AUTHOR.
SO WE ARE GOING TO RECESS FOR
JUST A FEW MOMENTS AS WE WAIT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMMITTEES
GOING ON CONCURRENTLY AND WE'RE
WAITING FOR THE NEXT BILL TO BE
PRESENTED.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S STONE. NICE TO
HAVE YOU HERE. JUST FUN. SHOW
OUR NEXT BILL, WE HAVE A BABY 15
77 FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S STONE.
WELCOME MR STONE. PLEASE
PROCEED. WHEN READY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SORRY THAT YOU'RE
HAVING STRUGGLE GETTING AUTHORS,
BUT I THINK THAT'S JUST THE TIME
OF YEAR. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO
15 77 IS YEAH. WE DON'T EVEN
HAVE A CHAIR, SO PLEASE PROCEED
. 15 77 REALLY IS A PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD BILL. IT IS THE
ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES HAVE THE
RIGHT TO ASK THEMSELVES WHETHER
OR NOT THEY WANT TO ORGANIZE AND
BE ABLE TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN
OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES
. BILL MERELY IS AN
AUTHORIZATION FOR EMPLOYEES IN
THIS HOUSE, LOOKING AT STAFF
RANK AND FILE STAFF TO BE ABLE
TO ORGANIZE. THAT'S WHAT THE
BILL IS, AND IT'S BEEN TRIED. A
NUMBER OF TIMES HAS LOTS OF
IMPLICATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN
THE WORKPLACE CONDUCT UNIT WAS
PUT IN PLACE IN ALL OF THOSE
DISCUSSIONS, I CAN'T HELP BUT
UNION. THE CHARACTER. THE TIMING
OF NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT, AND I KNOW THEY DO
HARD WORK, BUT THAT WORK COULD
BE IMPROVED. I THINK, GIVING
PEOPLE A VOICE IN THEIR
WORKPLACES, SOMETHING THAT IS
CORE. TO THE VALUES OF MANY IN
THIS LEGISLATURE. THAT'S REALLY
WHAT THIS BILL IS. AND I ASKED
FOR YOUR IPODS. THANK YOU, MR
STONE, AND IN LEEDS SUPPORT, I
UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES. SHOUBAKI DUMP
DEMÓCRATAS WELCOME. THANK YOU.
PLEASE PROCEED OF TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS SHIBANI DEMARCO'S I'M
CURRENTLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION, AND PREVIOUSLY
I WAS A LEGISLATIVE AIDE AND
LATER CHIEF OF STAFF. THE FORMER
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LORENA GONZALEZ.
WE'RE PROUDSPONSORS OF AB 15 77
FOR ONE FUNDAMENTAL REASON. WE
FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT EVERY SINGLE
WORKER DESERVES THE RIGHT TO
JOIN A UNION IF THEY CHOOSE.
WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS SINCE THE
START OF THE PANDEMIC, I GOT TO
WITNESS FIRSTHAND MY FORMER
COLLEAGUES IN THE ASSEMBLY AND
SENATE TRULY EMBODY WHAT IT
MEANS TO HAVE EXCELLENCE IN
PUBLIC SERVICE WHILE CARRYING
OUT AROUND THE CLOCK RAPID
RESPONSE. LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES
STRETCH THEMSELVES TO THE LIMIT
. THEY STAFFED AND ANALYZED AND
UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF BILLS
ASSISTED YOU ALL IN STRUCTURING
MULTIPLE HISTORIC STATE BUDGETS
AND DISTRICT STAFFERS HAVE
OPERATED CRISIS HOTLINES AND
ENSURED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
FAMILIES RECEIVED THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE YET
DESPITE OLDING SUCH IMMENSE
RESPONSIBILITIES, LEGISLATIVE
STAFF THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC
AND EVEN AFTER THE ME TOO
MOVEMENT HAVE NEVER HAD A
MEANINGFUL PROTECTED FORUM TO
WEIGH IN ON HOW THE LEGISLATOR
DEALS WITH MATTERS LIKE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROTOCOLS AND PAY INEQUITIES,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN OUR
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES
HAVE TACKLED SIMILAR ISSUES
THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO ACTUALLY
WORK WITH EMPLOYERS TO TAILOR
SOLUTIONS THAT FIT THEIR
WORKPLACE. PUBLIC SERVANTS DO
NOT ENTER THIS LINE OF WORK FOR
PRAISE OR TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR
THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS OR THEIR
SACRIFICES. ALL THIS BILL
REQUIRES IS GIVING LEGISLATIVE
STAFF OVERDUE RESPECT THEY
DESERVE AND TRUSTING THEM TO
DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER TO
HAVE A COLLECTIVE VOICE ON THE
JOB, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE IN THE STATE. BY
PASSING A B 15 77 TODAY,
CALIFORNIA WOULD BE ON ITS WAY
TO FOLLOWING STATES LIKE
WASHINGTON AND OREGON AND EVEN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHO
HAVE ALREADY EMPOWERED THEIR
STAFF WITH THE RIGHT TO UNIONIZE
. AND LASTLY, I WOULD BE REMISS
IF I DIDN'T SHARE THAT, DESPITE
THE COUNTLESS LEGISLATIVE STAFF
WHO HAVE REACHED OUT TO US TO
EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
ARE AFRAID. OF RETALIATION FOR
SPEAKING UP AND POSSIBLY
JEOPARDIZING THEIR JOBS, WHICH
JUST FURTHER SPEAKS TO THE NEED
FOR THIS BILL. WE HOPE TO
CONTINUE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS
TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION IS
WORKABLE. AND WE STRONGLY URGE
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR MARCUS. NEXT LEAD
WITNESS, MR GREGORY CRAMER.
WELCOME. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS GREGORY
CRAMER AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING
MYSELF. TODAY I SERVED AS A LEAD
STAFFER FOR TWO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
AND ONE SENATOR DURING THE TIME
FRAME OF 2010 TO 2019. AND
ENTERED THE CAPITAL THROUGH THE
SACRAMENTO SEMESTER INTERNSHIP
PROGRAM, WHICH I CREDIT FOR
GETTING MY FOOT IN THE DOOR IS A
LEGISLATIVE AIDE. I KNEW THAT
MAINTAINING EMPLOYMENT THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD REQUIRE ME TO
PERFORM DUTIES OUTSIDE OF MY JOB
ASSIGNMENTS, BUT LINES WERE
CONSTANTLY BLURRED. DUE TO
CHRONIC STAFF TURNOVER AND
ASSEMBLY OFFICE I WORKED FOR
THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR
CARRYING OUT JOB DUTIES AND
TASKS NORMALLY RESERVED FOR
CHIEFS OF STAFF AND LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTORS WITHOUT BEING
COMPENSATED OR RECLASSIFIED
APPROPRIATELY. THIS INCLUDED
APPROVING PAYROLL, SUBMITTING
FINANCIAL REQUESTS IN DEVELOPING
THE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE. IN
ADDITION, I WAS REQUIRED TO PICK
UP THE MEMBERS TRY CLEANING A
SYMBOL AS FURNITURE. FOR HIS
SACRAMENTO APARTMENT AND ATTEND
CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISERS AFTER HOURS
, OFTEN ALREADY PUTTING IN 10 OR
11 DAY, OUR DAY IN THE
LEGISLATURE, SO ON DAYS WHEN I
CALLED SICK, I WOULD ALSO
RECEIVE HARASSING PHONE CALLS
FROM THE MEMBER DEMANDING ME TO
WORK. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GOOD
STANDING AS A LEGISLATIVE
STAFFER. I WAS OFTEN VOLUNTEER
OLD CAMPAIGN FOR LEGISLATORS ON
MY OWN TIME AND ON MY OWN DIME.
APPLICATION TIME WAS PRACTICALLY
NON EXISTENT. GIVEN THE RIGOROUS
LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR AND WHAT
AND THEIR VACATION TIME THAT WAS
THERE WAS USED FOR CAMPAIGN
EVENTS. DURING MY TENURE IN THE
CAPITAL, IT WAS COMMON FOR
GRIEVANCES TO BE DISMISSED OR
WORSE. EMPLOYEES FACING
TERMINATION FOR COMING FORWARD.
IN MY CIRCUMSTANCE, INTERNAL
INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED,
BUT NO, OF COURSE CORRECTIONS
RESULTED ULTIMATELY, THE
STRUCTURES IN PLACE WHERE TO
SERVE THE REPUTATION OF THE
LEGISLATURE, AND NOT JUST
SINCERELY ADDRESS THE WORKER
GRIEVANCES. ONCE I REALIZED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT IN
MY OFFICE WERE NOT PREDICATED ON
MERIT AND FAIR COMPENSATION FOR
THE RANGE OF SERVICES I PROVIDED
WAS NOT GOING TO MATERIALIZE. I
LIKE SO MANY STAFF DECIDED TO
SEEK EMPLOYMENT IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR. IF EFFECTIVE CONFLICT
CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRUCTURES
WERE IN PLACE. THE LEGISLATURE
COULD CURB THE BRAIN DRAIN OF
COMPETENT STAFF, WHILE IMPROVING
THE REPUTATION AND CREDIBILITY
OF THE LEGISLATURE AS A MODEL
EMPLOYER. I SHARE THE DETAILS OF
MY EXPERIENCE, NOT BECAUSE
THEY'RE UNIQUE. RATHER, MY
EXPERIENCES ARE SHARED AMONGST
SO MANY LEGISLATIVE STAFF IN THE
CAPITAL. AND I'M NOT JUST WANNA
GRIEVE STAFFER SUBJECT TO A
PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT MEMBER.
BUT MY EXPERIENCES ARE DIRECT
RESULT OF THE LACK OF TANGIBLE
PROTECTIONS AND UNIFORM
WORKPLACE STANDARDS WITHIN THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD LIKE THE
COMMITTEE. THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR HEARING THIS BILL TODAY AND
THE AUTHOR FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE. I THINK ABOUT I
THINK OF A UNION IS GOOD ENOUGH
FOR CONGRESSIONAL STAFF. IT'S
CERTAINLY GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOUR
STAFF. AND FOR THESE REASONS I
REQUESTED SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU IS ARE THERE ANY OTHER
INDIVIDUALS IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO TEST FOR
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? IF SO,
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME YOUR
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. GOOD
MORNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
CHRISTOPH MAYER, FORMER
LEGISLATIVE STAFFER AND
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
ABSOLUTE CALIFORNIA. WE'RE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT,
PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, MATT
LIZZIE ON BEHALF OF STU,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, SHANE GUSSMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS, THE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
MACHINISTS UTILITY WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, UNITE HERE AND
OTHERS ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CASSIE
MANCINI ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, AND MYSELF AS A
FORMER LEGISLATIVE STAFFER AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. THANKS,
PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, LOUIS
COSTA WITH THE STATE LEGISLATIVE
BOARD OF THE SHEET METAL, AIR,
RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS,
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. SMART
TD AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. JAMES
SANDOVAL, HERE, REPRESENTING
SMART LOCAL 23 SENATORS,
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, DENISE TO
GOD AS FORMER LEGISLATIVE STAFF
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU. NEXT,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
SENATORS, DOUG SUPERS ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
COMMITTEE HEARING WHO WOULD LIKE
TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF A B 15
77 SEEING? NONE, MR. MODERATOR,
LET'S GO TO THE TELECONFERENCE
LINE. IF YOU COULD PLEASE QUERY
THE PARTICIPANTS FOR ANYBODY
WHO'D LIKE TO VOICE THEIR
SUPPORT FOR A B 15 77. ANYWAY
THAT WOULD HAVE SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL. PRESS 10 RYAN TELEPHONE
KEYPAD. SUPPORT FROM LINE NUMBER
46. PLEASE GO AHEAD. 1946 YEAR
LINE IS OPEN. WE'LL GO TO LINE
NUMBER 49. 49. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. PLEASE PROCEED. I LIKE 29.
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. SORT OF A
KIND OF A SILENT SUPPORT TODAY.
NEXT PLEASE. YES WE'LL GO TO
LINE WHICH I LINE 53 LINE IS
OPEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THIS
MODERATOR. WE'RE SURE WE'RE SURE
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE
LINES. CORRECT PEOPLE JUST
AREN'T RESPONDING. THEY'RE NOT
REMEMBERING THEIR LINE NUMBERS,
OKAY? 9 53 A LINE IS OPEN.
OKAY, ONE MOMENT HERE. MR MATTER
IF YOU IF YOU COULD PLEASE QUERY
THE LINE ONE MORE TIME. WE'RE
NOT DOING VERY WELL BY WAY OF
PARTICIPATION. YES ONCE AGAIN
FIRST ONE IS ZERO ON YOUR
TELEPHONE KEYPAD. IF YOU FOR
THIS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IF
YOU'D LIKE TO SUPPORT IF YOU'D
LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR 80
15 77. IT WAS, WE WILL GO TO
LINE 87. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. DAN OCON FAST FORMER
LEGISLATIVE STAFFER AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE. WE WOULD
GO TO LINE NUMBER 26, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MR CHAIR MEMBERS, SARAH
FLOCKS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA IATSE COUNCIL THAT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEDERATION OF
LABOR AND UNITE HERE LOCAL 11
ALL IN SUPPORT. I AM ALSO PROUD
FORMER UNION MEMBER THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. LINE.
22 YELLEN IS OPEN. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS CHILD DENTIST
ON BEHALF OF HE D. W ASKED ME
LOCAL 39 13 SUPPORT OFF A B 15
77 THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. NEXT TO BE LINED 65.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. FAKE LI I AM A
FORMER ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
STAFFER FOR 4.5 YEARS I AM AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 15 77.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. THAT TO BE LINE 62.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING
SHARE AND SENATORS. MY NAME IS
ANTHONY DEMARTINO, AND I AM A
FORMER ASSEMBLY STAFFER FOR FOUR
YEARS IN A MINUTE STRONG SUPPORT
OF A B 15 77. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. THAT WILL BE
LINE 66, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY
NAME IS NAME A CHARLES. I'M A
FORMER ASSEMBLY SOFTWARES
SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY
, AND I WAS A CONSTITUENT OF SC
11. I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
MAYBE 50 15 77. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. I HAD TO GO TO LINE 73,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MORNING MR
CHAIR, REMEMBERS PAXSON'S HEAVY
I AM THE CONSTRUCT OF CALIFORNIA
DEMOCRAT SPEAKING INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN SUPPORT OF DISPOSE
STRONGLY SUPPORTED MAYBE 15 77.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT PLEASE. THE
NEXT WILL GO TO LINES. 17,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. THIS IS
ARIANA CIVIC, FORMER ASSEMBLY
STAFF FOR 12 YEARS AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. XV WILL GO TO LINE
NUMBER 83, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. MODERATOR REMEMBERS
THE COMMITTEE. MR CHAIR JEREMY
SMITH HERE ON BEHALF. STATE
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL AS A FORMER LEGISLATIVE
STAFFER, MYSELF AND OTHER STATE
. WE ARE SUPPORTED THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT,
PLEASE. NEXT WE'LL GO TO LINE
85, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. THIS IS SHANNON
THORNTON. FORMER LEGISLATIVE
STAFF. STRONG SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. NEXT WE GO TO LINE
STEPHANIE TO PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HI. THIS IS KARI HOMES. FORMER
SENATE STAFFER IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE.
LET'S GO TO LINE. 80, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS
RHONDA, FORMER ASSEMBLY EMPLOYEE
ONE YEAR AND STRONGLY SUPPORT 15
77. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. THAT WILL GO TO LINE 78.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES. HI GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE CURRENT STAFFERS SPEAKING OF
MY OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY.
STAGGERING ASSEMBLY. STRONG,
SUPPORTIVE BABY 50 77. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT WE GO TO LINE
NUMBER 88, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
MORNING MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS DANIEL CHERYL ON BEHALF
OF CDU, LOCAL 1000 AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT WE GO TO LINE
71, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, MR CARON MEMBERS,
CURRENT ASSEMBLY STAFFER AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF ABC 15 77.
HELLO. AND I'M ANOTHER. YEAH,
I'M SURE WE LAST YEAR CORRUPTION
COMIC IN GO AHEAD. PLEASE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 79. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR. YES. TANIA
JIMENEZ, FORMER STAFFER IN THE
SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF MAYBE 15 77.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT,
PLEASE. NEXT WE GO TO LINE 81,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR MEMBERS REPORTED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE.
NEXT WE GO TO 75. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI THIS IS A CURRENT
STAFFER OF THE ASSEMBLY,
SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT
WE'LL GO TO LINE 92, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, CRISTINA SHIRO OF
FORMER LEGISLATIVE STAFFER
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF 15 77.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. HAD TO GO TO LINE 91.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. I
AM A LEGISLATIVE STAFFER IN THE
ASSEMBLY BEING AN HONEST
ANONYMOUSLY IN SUPPORT OF THE 15
77. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO LINE
68. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS RHONDA
CHAVEZ AND I'M A FORMER ASSEMBLY
EMPLOYEE FOR OVER A YEAR AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT MAYBE 15 77.
THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT WE
GO TO THE LINE. 77 0, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. NICHOLAS JASO, FORMER
INTERN IN THE ASSEMBLY, SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF STAFF WAS AFRAID OF
RETALIATION IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
MAYBE 15 57. THANKYOU, MISS
MOTOR. IF YOU IF YOU COULD
PLEASE CHECK THE LINE. LET US
KNOW HOW MANY MORE CALLERS WE
HAVEN'T SUPPORTED WE HAVE SEX.
ALRIGHT, PLEASE, FOR SURE. THAT
SHOULD GO TO THE LINE. 96,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. CLIMBING
CHARITY ROGERS. I'M A FORMER
ASSEMBLY STAFFERS SPEAKING IN MY
PERSONAL CAPACITY AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF MAYBE 15 77. THANK
YOU NEXT, PLEASE. WE'LL GO TO
97. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HELLO I'M A
CURRENT ASSEMBLY STAFFERS
SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT WE'LL GO TO A
LINE 98, PLEASE GO AHEAD. SIGN
MY NAME IS DIAMOND BRANDON. I'M
A FORMER ASSEMBLY STOP FOR FIVE
YEARS AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
ABBY 15 77. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. NEXT WILL BE ALIGNED.
105, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. MY
NAME IS JAMIE GEIGER'S SPEAKING
IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY OF THE
FORMER ASSEMBLY STAFFER AND
STRONG SUPPORT 15 77. THANKS.
THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE. EXT.
BEELINE 1 10, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
FELICIA LEWIS SPEAKING IN MY
PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A FORMER,
UM, SOME WAY CHIEF OF STAFF AS
WELL AS A SENATE SUCKER, YOUR
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. IN JUST ONE LAST TIME.
IF YOU DO A SUPPORT FOR THIS
PRESS ONE AND ZERO, WE HAD A FEW
MORE QUÊ UP. WE'LL GO TO LINE
61, PLEASE GO AHEAD. UM HI. GOOD
MORNING. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THIS
IS THE MAILBOXES. RODRIGUEZ
FORMER ASSEMBLY FELLOW SPEAKING
IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF THE 15 77.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT,
PLEASE. AND FOR THOSE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE FOR
THOSE WHO DID NOT GET THERE.
LINE NUMBER PRESS STAR ZERO SO
THAT THEY MAY GIVE THAT TO YOU.
WE WILL GO TO 1 11, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, SHE
REMEMBERS. MY NAME IS AARON
CURTIS SCIENCE PHONE IN THE
ASSEMBLY, SPEAKING ON MY OWN
CAPACITY, AND I'M CALLING IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF 15 77. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? WE
HAVE THREE MORE. IN SUPPORT WILL
GO TO 1 17, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HIGH CHAIR AND MEMBERS ALEXIS
CASTRO, FORMER SENATOR STAFFORD
SPEAKING IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY
IN SUPPORT OF ABC, 1577. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU NEXT WEEK. THAT
WOULD BE LINE WON ALL FOUR
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MORNING I'M A
CURRENT EXECUTIVE BRANCH
APPOINTEES SPEAKING MY OWN
PERSONAL CAPACITY AND SUPPORT OF
A B 15 77. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND NEXT, PLEASE. EXTRA B LINE.
44, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES SENATOR
CORTEZ E. I'M KEITH UMEMOTO USED
TO WORK FOR A GOOD FRIEND OF
YOUR DAD'S SENATOR. L OCULUS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. HAVING WORKED 90
DAYS STRAIGHT FOR THE BUTTONS ON
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
AND NEXT, PLEASE, IF ANY ALIGN
109, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME
IS SARAH. I'M CALLING IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF A B 16 77 AS A FORMER
SENATE STAFFER. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE ON THE
TELECONFERENCE LINE AND SUPPORT
? THERE IS ONE LAST PERSON NOT
LINE. 94, PLEASE GO AHEAD. LINE
94. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. PLEASED
TO MEET YOU START IF YOU'RE
MUTED. WITH THAT WE HAVE NO
FURTHER SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR
MODERATE. LET'S COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM. I
UNDERSTAND. THERE'S ONE MORE
PERSON WHO'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN
PERSON SUPPORT POLICE PURSUED.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
MICHAEL YOUNG WITH CALIFORNIA
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS ALSO
HEARING STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR YOUNG. NOW
STAYING HERE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO'D
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO
A B 15 77? SOON NONE. MR
MODERATOR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE
QUERY THE TELECONFERENCE LINE
FOR ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO HB 15
77. ANYONE WITH OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
THEN ZERO ON YOUR TELEPHONE
KEYPAD. ONCE AGAIN THE
OPPOSITION 10 AT THIS MOMENT. IT
APPEARS WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION.
WELL, THANK YOU. LET'S LET'S
BRING IT. BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM TO THE MEMBERS,
SENATOR ROSS Ó. I'D LIKE TO
MOVE THE BILL. APPRECIATE THAT.
OKAY OKAY. WE HAVE JUST I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND
THANK, UM LEGISLATIVE STAFF FOR
ALL THAT THEY DO FOR THE STATE
AND FOR OUR NEEDS. UM AND I
THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO
ESTABLISH A UNIFORM STANDARD OF
WORKING CONDITIONS. UM, THERE'S
NOTHING MORE HELPFUL. THAN TO
KNOW THAT THERE'S GONNA BE AN
EQUAL PUTTING AS FAR AS WHAT'S
EXPECTED OF YOU AND YOUR
RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT ALSO WHAT
YOUR BENEFITS ARE AND WHAT YOUR
RIGHTS ARE SO I GUESS MAYBE MY
BACKGROUND HAS SOMETHING TO DO
WITH THIS, BUT I HAVE BEEN ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION AS
THE TECHNICALLY THE EMPLOYER,
BUT THAT'S OKAY. WHEN YOU HAVE
THE ABILITY TO AND THE FREEDOM
TO SPEAK UP. I THINK THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE
WORKPLACE. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO
FOR MY PART ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
STRATEGY. I'M PROUD TO BE A CO
AUTHOR. OF THIS BILL AND ATTEND
TO SENATOR ROUSES POINTS. I
WOULD ADD THAT THAT IF WE HEAR
IN THE LEGISLATION BELIEVE
STRONGLY IN THE RIGHT TO
COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN AND FAIR
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATION
FOR EMPLOYEES, WE SHOULD BE
WILLING TO GRANT OUR OWN
LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEES THE SHAME.
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, AND I
THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE CALLING IN
TODAY AND SUPPORT PARTICULARLY
THOSE WHO ARE CALLING IT
ANONYMOUSLY, SAYS SOMETHING I
THINK FAIRLY TELLING IN SUPPORT
OF THE NEED FOR THIS
LEGISLATION. SO WITH THAT, IF
YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE THANK YOU,
SENATORS. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS AND
THIS IS AN INTERNAL QUESTION.
THIS IS ONE OF THE RARE INTERNAL
QUESTIONS THAT WE AS LEGISLATORS
GET BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT HOW WE
CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE
HOUSE. AND YOU HEAR. ALL THOSE
WITNESSES ARE CURRENT OR FORMER
STAFFERS. AND THOSE ARE ALL
FOLKS WHO HAVE EXPERTISE AND TO
UNDERSTAND. AND CAN BE EMOTIONAL
AND EMOTIONAL ISSUE. AND THE
ANALYSIS SHOWS THE EMOTION IN IN
THIS ISSUE. BUT THIS IS A SOLID
SOLUTION. THIS IS A RECOGNITION
OF THE HARD WORK THAT OUR STAFF
DOES. SO I'M BEING HALF OF
CURRENT AND FORMER STAFFERS. I
JUST I ASKED FOR AN EITHER.
THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, MADAM
CONSULTANT IF YOU COULD CALL THE
ROLL FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AND
JUDICIARY SENATOR CORTEZ E.
SENATOR C BOGUE, SENATOR
DURAZO. TERRAZZO I, SENATOR
LAIRD, SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN I
THAT BILL IS ON CALL AND
CURRENTLY HAS TWO VOTES. SO WE
WILL LEAVE THAT BILL ON CALL.%
THANK YOU, MR STONE. THANK YOU.
AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ANOTHER
BILL. DO A B 21 83. WE'RE BACK
HERE WITH THE THIS ISSUE AROUND
HOW FARM WORKERS CAN VOTE. AND
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PUT
IN PLACE A MAIL IN BALLOT TYPE
PROCESS THAT WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR
WITH WHEN WE GO TO THE POLLS AND
A LOT OF THE WORK THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS DONE. TO ENSURE
THAT WE GET MORE PARTICIPATION.
SAME THING IN FARM WORKER
ELECTIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT TO
UNIONIZE, AND WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING THE YOUR ANALYSIS POINTS
OUT LAST YEAR'S VETO AND THE
PREVIOUS VETOES AND I WILL POINT
YOU TO THE GOVERNOR'S VETO
MESSAGE FROM LAST YEAR THAT
THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT HE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED AND
WE DIDN'T GET THAT LAST YEAR. WE
DID NOT HAVE A LAWYER BE AT THE
TABLE. WE DID NOT GET THAT LEVEL
OF DISCUSSION, BUT THROUGH THE
FALL AND IN THE WINTER, WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING QUITE A BIT BETWEEN
US W AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
I WANT TO THANK THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE FOR BEING SO OPEN TO
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. IN FACT,
OUR NEXT DISCUSSION IS THIS
AFTERNOON. SO THE BILL BEFORE
YOU IS A SOLUTION. I WILL ADMIT
IT IS NOT A SOLUTION TO CURRENT.
THE GOVERNOR CURRENTLY SUPPORTS
BUT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THE
CONCEPTS AND THE PROCESSES TO
ENSURE THAT THAT HAPPENED, SO WE
KEEP THIS GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO
FACILITATE FARMWORKER ELECTIONS
AND ORGANIZATION. BUT ALSO IN A
WAY THAT MEETS THE GOVERNOR'S
STANDARD, AND WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE LRB. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S STAFF WERE
TALKING WITH FARM WORKERS WITH
THE REST OF LABOR. AND SO THIS
BILL WILL CHANGE. AND I WILL
TELL YOU I WILL PROMISE TO YOU,
OF COURSE, THAT ANY AMENDMENTS
WE WILL BRING BACK TO STAFF TO
THE CHAIR TO YOU TO BE ABLE TO
VET AND SEE. CAUSE I'M ASKING
FOR YOU TO MOVE THIS BILL OUT.
NOW AGAIN, THIS IS A VIABLE
SOLUTION. BUT THIS IS THIS WILL
CHANGE, BUT WE WILL NOT DO ANY
CHANGES WITHOUT YOUR CONCURRENCE
AND WITHOUT ASSEMBLY LABOR
CONCURRENCE AS WELL. WE DO HAVE
TO BRING IT BACK TO THE ASSEMBLY
FOR CONCURRENCE. SO I WANT TO
GIVE YOU THE COMFORT THAT YOU
WILL BE A PART OF WHATEVER
CHANGES THIS IS AND IF WE CAN
REACH A DEAL BETWEEN THE
ADMINISTRATION BE ABLE TO PUT
SOMETHING ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK
THAT HE WILL BE WILLING TO SIGN.
THAT MEETS THE UNDERLYING
TENANTS OF PROTECTION OF
FARMWORKERS AND ABILITY TO HOLD
ELECTIONS THEN THAT WILL BE A
SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT FOR FARM
WORKERS AND FOR THE ABILITY TO
ORGANIZE. SO I ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU, MR JOHNSON. I
UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE
ONE LEAD WITNESS IN SUPPORT.
TERESA ROMERO. FROM THE UNITED
FARM WORKERS. IS THERESA HERE,
OR IS SHE ON THE LINE? SHE'S ON
THE LINE. SO, MR MEREB, PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING. THAT IS A TOMATO
UNITED SUPPORT OF THE VIEW. EACH
OF YOU ARE ELECTED. VOTING IS
THE ONLY. TRUE THAT WE HAVE TO
BALANCE POWER AMONG PEOPLE
BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE RICH AND
PEOPLE WHO ARE NUTS. SO MANY
HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THE
RIGHT TO VOTE IF THEY KNOW AND
THEY KNEW. BODY MAKES US ALL
EQUAL. OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS,
CALIFORNIA HAS ENACTED NEW LAWS
THAT MAKE REGISTERING TO VOTE
EASIER. NEW LAWS THAT PEOPLE
MORE TIME MORE WAYS TO VOTE NEAL
LAW TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HELP
OTHERS. FILL OUT THEIR BALLOTS.
NEW LAW, PEOPLE GET THE BALLOTS
AND DELIVER THEM TO GOVERNMENT
OFFICES. STOP ME LOST HAVE
STOPPED. VOTER SUPPRESSION, STOP
SCARING PEOPLE FROM VOTING IN
CALIFORNIA. DON'T GET LOST, HAVE
PROVEN THAT WOULD INCREASE VOTER
PARTICIPATION WHILE KEEPING
ELECTIONS THERE AND SECURE THE
LORD HAS MADE IT EASIER TO VOTE
ON DIFFERENT DAYS AND IN
DIFFERENT PLACES FOR PEOPLE LIVE
AND WORK TODAY, EVEN DURING THE
HEALTH PANDEMIC, AND WE GOT TO
THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE LAW
THAT GIVES SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE AND HAPPY UNION. WAS
ADOPTED IN 1975. THAT WAS 47
YEARS AGO. BACK THEN, THE ONLY
WAY TO TALK ABOUT FOR PRESIDENT
THAT MAYOR WHAT? PHYSICALLY GO
TO THE POLLING PLACE ON THE DAY
OF THE ELECTION, AND YOU HAD TO
BE REGISTERED TO VOTE 30 DAYS IN
ADVANCE. THAT HAS ALL CHANGED
OVER TIME. WELL I THINK IT IS
TIME TO ALSO CHANGED. A LOT OF
FARM WORKERS CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR
UNIONS AND DO SOMETHING TO
ENSURE THAT I'M WORKERS ARE NOT
INTIMIDATED OR THE IMPORTANT
SUPPRESSED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE
AGRICULTURAL LABOR BODY.
AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS FOR
INSURANCE ACT. THANK YOU. MR
RAMIRO. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN
THE COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
MAYBE 21 83. GOOD MORNING
SENATORS SETH BRAMBLE HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT,
PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. MATT LOGY
FROM CTU, CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING, CASSIE MANCINI ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, SHANE GUZMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING, SWANKY DEMARCO'S
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION AND VERY STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE
GRANDMA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
UFCW WESTERN STATES COUNCIL AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE ANYBODY ELSE
WHO WOULD LIKE TEST RYAN PERSON
HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM? SEEING
NONE. LET'S GO TO THE
TELECONFERENCE LINE. MR
MODERATOR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE
QUERY THE LINE FOR ANYBODY
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
MAYBE 2023 WITH THEIR NAME THEIR
AFFILIATION IN THEIR POSITION.
29 3. IF YOU HAVE SUPPORT AT
THIS MOMENT, PRESS ONE AND ZERO
ON YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD. GOOGLE
TO LINE NUMBER 26. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. FLOCKS ON BEHALF OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FEDERATION OF
LABOR IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. WE'LL GO TO LINE
NUMBER 24, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, REBECCA GONZALEZ
NATIONALIST ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. YOU GO TO LINE
NUMBER 94, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO GOOD MORNING. THIS IS
EDGAR CHEESE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER, CALLING AND SUPPORT
ASSEMBLY BILL 21 83. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. WE'LL
GO TO LINE NUMBER 1 24, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS MARK SHOCK WOULD
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION ALSO IN
STRONG SUPPORT? THANK YOU NEXT,
PLEASE. 1 24 WAS ORIGINALLY THE
LAST PERSON BUT WE HAD ONE
PERSON QUEUE UP AND THAT'S LINE
1 29, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MORNING
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS AND IT WAS
DANIEL CHERYL. WITH S E I U
LOCAL 1000 CALLING IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE
WHO'D LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF THE TELECONFERENCE LINE IN
SUPPORT OF 21 83? WE HAVE NOBODY
THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN SUPPORT.
VERY GOOD. LET'S LET'S COME BACK
TO THE HEARING ROOM. IS THERE
ANYBODY WE HAVE A LEAD WITNESS?
THAT'S ACTUALLY HOFFMAN FROM THE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ACTUALLY
THERE YOU ARE. MATTHEW ALLEN IS
ON THAT PHONE LINE AS WELL.
WELL, PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY? GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE ON MATTHEW ALLEN
WITH WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TESTIFIED TODAY
QUESTION GROWER IS WESTERN,
GORGEOUS, STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A
B 21 83. THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT
MAIL IN VOTING RESPECTFULLY. IT
IS THE LATEST ATTEMPT TO
UNDERMINE THE SECRET BALLOT
ELECTION PROCESS AS ESTABLISHED
BY THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. THE SECRET BALLOT
SERVES AS ONE OF THE CORE
ELEMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE FARM WORKERS RIGHT TO A FREE
AND UNCOERCED CHOICE. IN
DECIDING TO VOTE EITHER FOR OR
AGAINST UNION REPRESENTATION.
THIS BILL ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE
THE FARM WORKERS RIGHT TO THE
SECRET BALLOT ELECTION THAT IS
FREE FROM THIS COERCION FROM ANY
PARTY THAT HAS A FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
ELECTION. THIS FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE
WAS RECOGNIZED BY. GOVERNOR
SCHWARZENEGGER'S VETO OF SB 7 89
IN 2000 AND NINE AND MOST
RECENTLY BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S
VETO OF A B 616 JUSTICE LAST
YEAR. WE ARE ALSO OPPOSED TO THE
BONDING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED
IN THE BILL WHEN APPEALING A
MONETARY AWARD ORDER AT THE
LARB. MAYBE 28 83 REQUIRES THAT
THIS APPEALS BOND WE FILED AS A
CONDITION OF HAVING THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL A DECISION OF THE BOARD.
THIS VIOLATES BASIC DUE PROCESS
BECAUSE IT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS
THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT THE EMPLOYER CAN MAKE AN
APPEAL. THE BABY IS NOT A
NEUTRAL PARTY IN THIS CONTEXT
AND HAS A PREJUDICIAL INTEREST
IN THE OUTCOME OF THE ACTUAL
APPEAL. THIS LANGUAGE WAS ALSO
FOUND IN 85 61 IN 2015. THAT WAS
ALSO BE DIVIDE. EXCUSE ME,
GOVERNOR BROWN. THANK YOU AGAIN
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY
THIS MORNING. THANK YOU, MR
ALLEN. MISS HOFFMAN, PLEASE
PROCEED. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS. ACTUALLY HOFFMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND OPPOSITION TO BE
21 83 OF THE SECRET BALLOT
PROCESS HAS LONG BEEN SUPPORTED
BY THE NLRB AND OTHERS
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS THE
MOST ACCURATE REFLECTION OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S TRUE DESIRE IS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO
UNIONIZE. IT'S FOR THAT REASON
THAT THEY'LL OR BE IN THE NLRB
HAS SPECIAL RULES IN PLACE
SPECIFICALLY TO ELIMINATE LAST
MINUTE PRESSURE AND
ELECTIONEERING, AND THIS BILL
WOULD EVISCERATE THOSE
PROTECTIONS AGAINST COERCION BY
ELIMINATING THE SECRET BALLOT
PROCESS. INDEED A PRIOR
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS OF THIS BILL OR LAST
YEAR'S BILL HAS STATED THAT IT
WILL INDEED LEAD TO FEWER SECRET
BALLOT ELECTIONS. I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE MR ALLEN'S POINT THAT
THIS BILL HAS BEEN VETOED BY
THREE DIFFERENT GOVERNORS,
INCLUDING GOVERNOR RECENT, WHO
RIGHTLY SAID HIS VETO MESSAGE
THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO
CALIFORNIA AS WELL DEFINED
AGRICULTURAL LABOR LAWS MUST BE
CAREFULLY CRAFTED. TO ENSURE
THAT IT PROTECTS WORKERS INTENT
AS TO WHETHER THEY WISH TO BE
REPRESENTED. AS THE AUTHOR
ACKNOWLEDGED. THIS BILL IN ITS
CURRENT FORM IS NOT SOMETHING
THE ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THE
CHIEFS THAT GOAL. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE URGE A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS ANYBODY
HERE IN THE HEARING? WE WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION.
MAYBE 21 83. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, BRIAN LITTLE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION AND OPPOSITION FOR
THE REASONS ARTICULATED BY
WESTERN GROWERS AND CAL CHAMBER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE WOULD LIKE TESTIMONY IN
PERSON? OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
SAYING NOBODY LET'S LET'S RETURN
TO THE TELECOMS LINE. MR
MODERATOR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE
QUERY THE TELECONFERENCE LINE
FOR ANYBODY WISHING TO TESTIFY
IN OPPOSITION TO A B 2093 WITH
THEIR NAME. AFFILIATION IN THE
POSITION. AT THIS MOMENT IF YOU
HAVE OPPOSITION, PLEASE PRESS
LONDON ZERO ON YOUR TELEPHONE
KEYPAD. WE DO HAVE A FEW PEOPLE
QUEUING UP IN OPPOSITION. ONE
MOMENT AS WE GET THEIR THEIR
LINE NUMBER.
MR MODERATOR. IF YOU COULD. WE
DO HAVE THOSE LINES. WE'RE GOING
TO GO TO 1 25, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, JOHN MOFFITT AND TO
HAVE THE MILK PRODUCERS COUNCIL
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. THAT WOULD BE
ALIGNED. 1 14, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING. TRICIA GEHRINGER
WITH AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION TO A B
21 83. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. HERE'S OUR LAST
SELF OPPOSITION IS LINE NUMBER.
21, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MORNING MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, CODY BOILS ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA, CITRUS
MUTUAL, CALIFORNIA FRESH FRUIT
ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA
STRAWBERRY COMMISSION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. LET'S COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM TO THE
MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS?
PLEASE. SENATOR RUSSELL LIKE TO
MOVE THE BILL, AND IF I DIDN'T
ALREADY BUT THIS IS PERSONALLY
VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AS WELL.
OUR FARM TIRE, FAMILY OR MIGRANT
FARM WORKERS. AND EVEN THOUGH
THAT WAS A FEW YEARS BACK I KNOW
THAT. I KNOW FAMILY THAT'S STILL
IN THE, UM FARMWORKER AS FARM
WORKERS. UM AND IT'S REALLY
DISTURBING TO HEAR THAT
SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS BEING
ABLE TO FILL OUT YOUR BALLOT. UM
THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO FILL IT
OUT. IS AT STAKE HERE TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE THE FREEDOM. IS REALLY
WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE. AND MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THE FREEDOM TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR WORKING
CONDITIONS. THE POVERTY THAT
EXISTS STILL IN AGRICULTURE'S
PRETTY SHOCKING SHOULD BE
SHOCKING TO ALL OF US. AND THE
FACT THAT WORKERS ALL THEY'RE
ASKING FOR IS THE ABILITY TO BE
ABLE TO UM, VOTE. WITHOUT THE
INTIMIDATION AND BE ABLE TO THEN
LEAD TO THE ABILITY TO SPEAK OUT
WITHOUT INTIMIDATION AND BE ABLE
TO ACTUALLY GET SOME DECENT
WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS. UM
ANYWAY, I. BUILD VERY STRONGLY
ABOUT THIS AND I THANK THE
AUTHOR AND I THANK THE FARM
WORKERS THEMSELVES WHO ARE OUT
THERE PUTTING FOOD ON OUR TABLE
, NO MATTER WHAT'S GOING ON IN
OUR LIVES AND NO MATTER WHAT
PANDEMIC HITS US THANK YOU. UH
MR STONE, IF YOU COULD. COULD
YOU SPEAK TO THE CONCERNS RAISED
BY THE OPPOSITION AROUND THE
SECRET BALLOT AND THE ASSERTION
THAT THIS CREATES POSSIBILITIES
FOR COERCION. YES THAT'S BEEN
ATTACKING POINT ALL ALONG, AND
IT IS JUST NOT TRUE. WE'RE
CREATING A PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY
WE'RE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH
A LARB. WHO MANAGES THIS PROCESS
OF GETTING BALLOTS IN
FARMWORKERS HANDS, THEN FORMWORK
CAN VOTE THE BALLOT AS THEY
LIKE. FEEL IT AND IT'S A BALLOT
THAT WILL. WE'RE STILL WORKING
ON SOME OF THESE DETAILS, BUT
WILL COME FROM A LARBI SO THEY
WILL MANAGE THE BALLOT PROCESS.
BOTH THE WAY THEY WANT TO SEAL
IT UP. SEND IT BACK TO L R B.
THAT IS THE SECRET BALLOT THE
BALLOT PRIOR TO BEING VOTED MAY
OR MAY NOT BE JUST AS OUR ABOUT
WE KNOW WHAT IS ON THOSE BALLOTS
BEFORE WE VOTE THEM. BUT JUST IN
THE PRIMARY. I VOTED IN MY OWN
HOME. I SEALED IT UP. I SENT IT
IN TO MY LOCAL ELECTIONS OFFICE
THAT WAS A SECRET BALLOT. AND
WE'RE CREATING A SIMILAR PROCESS
HERE, SO IT'S RHETORIC THAT
WE'RE BREAKING THE SECRECY OF
THE BALLOT. WE ARE NOT FOR A
LARB. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO
MAINTAIN THAT SECRECY. WE ARE
PUTTING THEM IN CHARGE. OF THIS
PROCESS. THAT IS WHY WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.
THAT IS WHY WE'RE WORKING WITH
LRB, SO IT'S NOT CREATING
COERCION. WHAT THEY'RE NOT
TELLING YOU IS THE CURRENT
SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH IT IS A
SECRET BALLOT. BY DEFINITION.
REMEMBER THESE ELECTIONS ARE
HAPPENING ON THE GROWERS
PROPERTY WHERE THE FARM WORKERS
ARE BEING TRANSPORTED TO THE
BALLOT BY THE GROWER BY THE
GROWERS REPRESENTATIVES. AND
THAT WHOLE TIME THAT'S WHERE THE
COERCION IS HAPPENING. THAT'S
WHERE THE PRESSURE IS HAPPENING
BY THE TIME THE FARM WORKERS GET
TO THAT BALLOT, WHICH IS
CURRENTLY CONTROLLED BY LRB,
THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY SEVERELY
BEAT UP. WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE
THAT PIECE OUT OF IT. LET THE
FARMWORKER VOTE AT HOME WHERE
THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WHERE
THEY'RE NOT UNDER THOSE KINDS OF
PRESSURES. THAT'S THE KEY HERE.
SO WE'RE UNDOING THIS LONG
STANDING IN BALANCE. AND
REMEMBER, BECAUSE THEY HAD LRB
AND LRB. THESE ARE A LOT OF
SPECIFICALLY PUT IN PLACE WITH
THE NOD TO THE AGRICULTURAL
COMMUNITY, NOT THE FARM WORKERS.
BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CONTROLLING
IT. THEY THAT'S WHY FARM WORKERS
HAVE FEWER RIGHTS AND FEWER
PROCESSES TO BENEFIT THEM, AND
THE CURRENT PROCESS IS JUST
OVERWROUGHT WITH INFLUENCE FROM
THE GROWERS. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
AFRAID OF. LOSING WITH. THIS
BILL DOES IS GIVE THE
FARMWORKERS THE OPTION TO BE
ABLE TO VOTE THEIR WAY. HOWEVER
THEY WANT TO ON THEIR OWN TIME.
YES, IT'S A SECRET BALLOT. SEND
IT IN. THANK YOU. MM WITH THAT,
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE SAYING NONE. MR STONE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU. I WOULD ONLY LIKE TO SAY WE
MOVED 616 THROUGH GUIDED TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK. WITH YOUR HELP.
I HAVE CONFIDENCE. WE CAN MOVE
THIS BILL. BUT I'M NOT TAKING
THAT ANY OF THAT FOR GRANTED
BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION. WE'RE WORKING
WITH THE LRB. WE'RE TRYING TO
FIND A PROCESS THAT ANSWERS TO
THE GOVERNOR'S CONCERNS FROM
LAST YEAR. AND I WANT TO PUT
SOMETHING ON HIS DESK. IT'S MY
GOALS FOR SOMETHING ON HIS DESK
THAT HE WILL BE WILLING TO SIGN.
BUT THAT HOLDS ONTO THE BASIC
TENANTS OF WHAT WE STARTED OUT
TO DO. AND THAT IS GIVE FARM
WORKERS ARE REAL VOICE. AND WITH
THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR I HAVE A
MOTION FROM SENATOR RUSSELL. I
JUST WANT TO REITERATE IN YOUR
OPENING. YOU MADE CLEAR THAT YOU
WERE WILLING AND COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH THE RESPECTIVE
COMMITTEES FROM BOTH THE OH,
ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE BECAUSE I
KNOW THAT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS AGAIN WE'RE MEETING THIS
AFTERNOON. WE WILL HAVE MORE
MEETINGS. WORKING OUT SOME OF
THESE ISSUES ON OUR LEGISLATIVE
TIMELINE. I KNOW I'M ASKING YOU
TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS A VIABLE
PROCESS AND WHAT IS IN THIS BILL
WILL WORK. I JUST DON'T KNOW
THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SIGN
IT. I WANT TO PUT SOMETHING ON
ASSESSED THAT THAT HE WILL SIGN
SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO
ANYTHING WITHOUT LETTING YOU
KNOW. AND LETTING ASSEMBLY LABOR
NO, SO THAT THERE ARE NO
SURPRISES HERE. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT, MADAM
CONSULTANT. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY SENATOR CORTEZ E.
SENATOR C BUG, SENATOR DURAZO.
TERRAZZO I, SENATOR LAIRD
LAYERED I SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN
. I THAT BUILDS ON COLONISTS.
THREE I VOTES RIGHT NOW HAS
THREE VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON
CALL. THANK YOU, MR STONE. AND
WE ARE AWAITING OUR NEXT BUSLOAD
OF AUTHORS HERE. SO I'M GOING TO
RECESS THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
TIME BEING AS WE AS WE MAKE A
CALL FOR THE NEXT AUTHORS FOR
SUBSEQUENT BILLS.
WE ARE BACK. LET'S BRING THE
MEETING BACK TO ORDER. WE ARE
PLEASED TO HAVE WITH US.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HANEY WELCOME
WILL BE PRESENTING A B 2068. IF
YOU ARE READY. ARE YOU READY?
OKAY I DON'T WANT TO RUSH YOU.
BUT IF YOU'RE READY, PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
AND RETIREMENT COMMITTEE. I AM
HERE TODAY TO PRESENT ON A B
2068, THE LANGUAGE RIGHTS BILL
FOR WORKERS. I WILL SAY THIS IS
MY FIRST TIME PRESENTING A BILL
AS AN ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. SO THANK
YOU FOR HAVING ME. THIS IS
EXCITING. I'M SORRY. INTERRUPT
PLEASE PROCEED SURE, BECAUSE I
WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THAT AND
THEN NOT HAZE YOU SO THANKS TO
HAZE. THAT'S YEAH. YEAH I'M JUST
PUTTING THAT UP THERE ALREADY
WELCOME. AH AS YOU KNOW, CAL
OSHA IS CHARGED WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND
IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF
WORKERS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.
HOWEVER CURRENTLY ALL WORK PUT
PLACE CITATIONS ORDERS. AND
SPECIAL ORDERS ISSUED BY CAL
OSHA ARE ONLY POSTED IN ENGLISH
. THIS CREATES AN INEQUITABLE
PROCESS IN WHICH THEIR COMPLAINT
PROCESS IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO
WORKERS WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND
AND SPEAK AND READ FLUENT
ENGLISH. THIS LEGISLATION TAKES
IMPORTANT STEPS TO COUNTER THIS
INEQUITY BY REQUIRING ALL
WORKPLACE CITATIONS. ORDERS AND
SPECIAL ORDER POSTINGS PREPARED
AND ISSUED BY COW OSHA TO BE
TRANSLATED INTO A LANGUAGE
SPOKEN BY AT LEAST 5% OF THE
WORKERS AT THEIR PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT. THE CAL OSHA
COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATORY
PROCESS IS LENGTHY, LENGTHY
PROCESS THAT REQUIRES ACTIVE
WORKER PARTICIPATION UNTIL I
CITATION IS ISSUED WORKERS WHO
FILE THESE COMPLAINTS WANT TO
CONCLUSION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE,
BUT LANGUAGE ACCESS BARRIERS
LEAVE WORKERS. CONFUSED AND
UNAWARE OF ENFORCEABLE ACT
ACTIONS. WHEN CAL OSHA POSTINGS
ARE POSTED IN A LANGUAGE NOT
UNDERSTOOD BY THEMSELVES OR
THEIR FELLOW WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
HAS STRONG WORKER PROTECTIONS.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE NOT EFFECTIVE
FOR WORKERS WHO DO NOT SPEAK OR
READ ENGLISH. WHILE THESE
CONCERNS OF LANGUAGE ACCESS HAVE
EXISTED FAR BEFORE COVID 19
PANDEMIC THESE PAST COUPLE OF
YEARS HAS SHOWN THE IMPORTANCE
OF LANGUAGE. ACCESSIBILITY FOR
ESSENTIAL WORKERS. WORKERS IN
HIGH RISK JOB SECTORS ARE FAR
MORE LIKELY TO BE IMMIGRANTS.
AND INDUSTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST
PANDEMIC RELATED DEATHS EMPLOY
MORE IMMIGRANT WORKERS, WHO ARE
PREDOMINANTLY FROM BLACK, LATINO
AND API COMMUNITIES, ALL WORKERS
, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO PUT
THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY ON THE
LINE TO ALLOW US TO SHELTER IN
PLACE. DESERVE TO KNOW WHEN
VIOLATIONS OCCUR IN THE
WORKPLACE, AND WHAT STEPS THE
EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE TO
REMEDY THE HAZARD. CALIFORNIA
HAS ALREADY ENACTED LAWS TO
EXPAND LANGUAGE ACCESS AND THE
COURTS. HEALTHCARE STATE
DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES AMONG OTHER
STATE AGENCIES. AND WE'VE MADE
IMPORTANT STRIDES TO INCREASE
ACCESSIBILITY. CALLOW SHE SHOULD
FOLLOW THEIR LEAD SO THAT OUR
STATES NON ENGLISH SPEAKING
WORKERS HAVE FULL ACCESS TO THE
COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATORY
PROCESSES NECESSARY TO HOLD
EMPLOYERS ACCOUNTABLE. WE HAVE A
WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS AND
NO KNOWN OPPOSITION AT THIS
POINT AND ALSO HAVE HERE TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF A B TO
2068 JAZZY GORRELL GRAS WITH
UFCW WESTERN STATE COUNCIL AND
MITCH STEIGER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION.
THANK YOU, MR HANEY. SO, MR
GREWAL PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS JESSE GRAY WALL,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR WITH THE
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS. WESTERN STATES COUNCIL
HERE ON BEHALF OF 180,000
MEMBERS. ALL OF HIM ARE
FRONTLINE ESSENTIAL WORKERS.
UFCW IS PROUD TO SUPPORT AND
THANK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HANEY FOR
AUTHORING A B 2068, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE CAL OSHA TO PROVIDE
EMPLOYERS WITH WORKPLACE
CITATION POSTINGS TRANSLATED
INTO THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN BY AT
LEAST 5% OF THE WORKERS AT THE
WORK SITE. POUSADA IS CHARGED
WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY OF WORKERS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA, HOWEVER, SIGNIFICANT
LANGUAGE ACCESS BARRIERS EXIST
IN CURRENT HEALTH AND SAFETY
LAWS. THAT DISADVANTAGED
IMMIGRANT WORKERS WHO DO NOT
UNDERSTAND AND SPEAK OR READ
FLUENT ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACCESS
BARRIERS AT THE WORKPLACE
EXISTED PRIOR TO THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC, BUT THE PANDEMIC
EXPOSES LANGUAGE ACCESS BARRIERS
THAT PREVENT WORKERS FROM
UNDERSTANDING CRITICAL WORKER
RIGHTS MEANT TO PROTECT THEM
WHILE AT THE WORKPLACE. DURING
THE PANDEMIC, UFCW FILED
NUMEROUS HEALTH AND SAFETY
COMPLAINTS WITH TELL OSHA ON THE
LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH
AND SAFETY MEASURES IN THE FOOD
SECTOR, PARTICULARLY AT OUR MEAT
PACKING PLANTS. THE MAJORITY OF
THE WORKERS AT THE MEAT PACKING
PLANTS ARE IMMIGRANTS WHO DID
NOT UNDERSTAND OR READ ENGLISH
IN AUGUST OF 2021 AFTER AN EIGHT
MONTH INVESTIGATION, CAL OSHA
CITED SMITHFIELD FOODS AND IT'S
TEMPORARY STAFFING AGENCY JOB
SOURCE. OVER $220,000 EACH FOR
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH COVID 19
HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS. THE
WORKPLACE CITATION POSTING
PREPARED BY COLO SHOT AND POSTED
BY THE EMPLOYER WAS ONLY IN
ENGLISH WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE
WORKERS SPOKE SPANISH AT THIS
PLAN. ACCORDING TO CURRENT LAW
COLOR, SHE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO
POST THE WORKPLACE CITATION
POSTINGS AND A LANGUAGE SPOKEN
OR UNDERSTOOD BY THE WORKERS AT
THE WORK SITE. THIS PROMPTED A
UNION UFCW LOCAL 7 70 TO
TRANSLATE KALUSHA WORKPLACE
POSTINGS INTO SPANISH SO WORKERS
KNEW CARLOS HIS DECISION AND THE
EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ABATEMENT. WORKERS BECOME
DISILLUSIONED WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS WHEN IT
TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS TO ISSUE A
CITATION AND THEN WORKERS CAN'T
UNDERSTAND THE ULTIMATE
ENFORCEMENT DECISION. BY CLOSING
A GAP IN CURRENT LAW, 2068 IS A
COMMON SENSE SOLUTION THAT WILL
MINIMIZE LANGUAGE ACCESS
BARRIERS IN THE WORKPLACE,
ENSURING PROPER ENFORCEMENT OF
HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS,
EMPOWERING IMMIGRANT WORKERS AND
PROVIDING FOR SAFER WORKPLACES
ACROSS CALIFORNIA. IT'S FOR
THESE REASONS. WE URGE HER. I
VOTE ON A B 2068 HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THE COMMITTEE MAY
HAVE. THANK YOU, MISS GRAY. WELL
MY NOTES SHOW THAT WILL ALSO
HAVE MITCH STAGGER FROM THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION HERE
IN PERSON. HE MAY BE ON THE
LINE. AND YOU SAID MAYBE NOT.
HE'S RUNNING FROM ANOTHER
COMMITTEE. HE'S OTHERWISE YOU
GET YOU IF HE JOINS, YOU KNOW,
HAPPY TO TAKE HIS TESTIMONY, BUT
LET'S NOW GO TO TESTIMONY AND
SUPPORT HERE IN PERSON. IF YOU
COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME
AFFILIATION IN YOUR POSITION ON
THE BILL. CÁC MANCINI ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU NEXT. SHANE
GASSMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS AND UNITE HERE AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU NEXT.
CHRISTOPH MAYER, AND WE HAVE OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE
COUNTY MINISTER AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES AND SUPPORT OF 2068.
THANK YOU NEXT. MATT WAS HERE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR JACK. LET'S NOW
STAYING HERE IN THE COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM. IS THERE ANYBODY
HERE LIKE TESTIFYING OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? WATCHING DONE,
LET'S GO TO THE TELEVISION
TELECONFERENCE LINE. IS THERE
ANYBODY ON THE TELECONFERENCE
AND I WOULD LIKE TESTIFY? DO
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ON
THE LINE? WE DID NOT. I
APOLOGIZE. MR MODERATOR. I'M
SORRY. LET'S LET'S GO TO THE
TELECONFERENCE FINE, AND LET'S
TAKE SUPPORT. TESTIMONY FOR A B
2068 AGAIN SUPPORT TESTIMONY.
NAME ACTUALLY HOLD UP. WE'VE GOT
MR STEIGER HERE. LET'S GET THIS
BACK ON TRACK. I BUY APOLOGIZE
FOR MY TERRIBLE CHEERING. TO
WELCOME, MR STAGGERED. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS. MITCH
STEIGER, WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. UM FOR ALL THE REASONS I'M
SURE, WELL STATED BY THE AUTHOR
, AND THE PREVIOUS WITNESS JUST
REALLY WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE
NUTS AND BOLTS OF THESE POSTINGS
AND EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN AND
SORT OF HOW THEY WORK IN
PRACTICE RIGHT NOW. CAL OSHA
USUALLY HAS ABOUT SIX MONTHS
BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY RELEASED
THE CITATION. AND DURING THAT
TIME, MOST OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING
IS COLLECTING INFORMATION FROM
THE EMPLOYER AND OTHER WORKERS,
SO THEY'VE GOT A GOOD AMOUNT OF
TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS
ACTUALLY GOING TO GO IN THAT
POSTING SO THEY SHOULD HAVE
ENOUGH TIME TO DEAL WITH WHAT
THEY KNOW IS GOING TO COME OUT
AND START TO GET THE TRANSLATION
PROCESS STARTED. I KNOW SOME
CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED THAT
THIS COULD CAUSE A DELAY IN THE
ACTUAL POSTING. WE THINK THAT
THE REALITY OF HOW THIS PROCESS
WORKS. THEY HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO
GET THE TRANSLATION STARTED. GET
THE BALL ROLLING SO THAT BY THE
TIME THE POSTING ACTUALLY
HAPPENS, THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD
ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY GET THE
TRANSLATION GOING, SO WE DON'T
SEE THERE'S ANY RISK OF DELAY.
BUT WE DO THINK THIS WOULD MAKE
A BIG DIFFERENCE. UM EXCUSE ME
IN TERMS OF WORKERS ACTUALLY
GETTING THE INFORMATION THEY
NEED AND FOR THOSE REASONS WE
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
NOW, LET'S LET'S RETURN TO THE
TELECONFERENCE LINE. MISS
MODERATE FOR ANY WITNESSES WHO'D
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF A
B 2068 NAME, WHICH IS IN PERSON
AND SUPPORT. OKAY PLEASE GO
AHEAD MELANIE MORALES ON BEHALF
OF THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU NOW TO THE
TELECOM, RIDGELINE AND SUPPORT
PLEASE PROCEED. FOR ANYONE IN
OUR PHONE LINE HAS SUPPORT PRESS
ONE, THEN ZERO ON YOUR TELEPHONE
KEYPAD. WE HAVE SUPPORTS MINE
NUMBER 26, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, SARAH FLOCKS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ARTS
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
NEXT. UM IT APPEARS WE HAVE
SUPPORT FROM 91 29. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS DANIEL CHERYL ON BEHALF
OF STU. LOOK, 1000 SUPPORT THANK
YOU NEXT. WE HAVE NOBODY ELSE IN
SUPPORT. OKAY NOW, LET'S COME
BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM FOR
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO A B
2068 IS GOING TO BE HERE LIKE
TESTIFYING OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. SEE ANONYMOUS MODERATOR
LETS ANYBODY ON THE LINE WHO'D
LIKE TO JUSTIFY AN OPPOSITION
2068. IF YOU COULD PLEASE QUERY
THE LINE. IF ANYBODY HAS
OPPOSITION AT THIS MOMENT, PRESS
10 ON YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD. IT
APPEARS WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. LET'S COME BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE, MR LAIRD. THANK
YOU. THIS IS A GOOD BILL. AND UH
, I HOPE THAT ALL THE REST OF
YOUR BILLS HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT
AND NOT ANY OPPOSITION
WHATSOEVER. AND SINCE THIS IS
THE FIRST BILL HAVE PARTICIPATED
IN THE SENATE, WE HAVE A
DIFFERENT PROCESS WHERE WE'RE
NOT LIKE THE ASSEMBLY WHERE WE
CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
BILL. 15 MINUTES INTO YOUR
STATEMENT, SO YOU CAN ALWAYS
JUDGE WETHER YOU REALLY WANT TO
GIVE THE WHOLE STATEMENT ON YOUR
OWN. WE NEVER CUT IT OFF. SO
WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO MOVE. MR
HANEY IS FIRST BILL. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. AND YOU DID A FINE JOB
ON YOUR STATEMENT. SO WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HANEY? SURE WELL, THANK YOU FOR
THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR NOT
HAZING. ME TOO, TOO, TOO BADLY.
HERE UH, YEAH. NO IT'S UH, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS A SIMPLE BILL, BUT
IT'S AN IMPORTANT BILL. BE
CITATIONS AND ORDERS ARE
INTENDED TO PROTECT WORKERS, AND
SO THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND THEM AND HAVE ACCESS
TO THEM. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. AND
I WANT TO PERSONALLY ATTEST TO
THE FACT THAT SENATOR LARRY IS A
VERY GOOD HEYZER WHEN THE SPIRIT
MOVES HIM, SO WITH THAT UH,
MADISON. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 11. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS, BUT FIRST REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS SENATOR CORTEZ E
. SENATOR KOA BOGUE, SENATOR
DURAZO. SENATOR LAIRD DÍAS,
SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN, I THAT
BILL IS ON CALL THAT BILL HAS
TWO VOTES WILL LEAVE IT ON CALL
. LET US MOVE TO THE NEXT AUTHOR
AND LET ME I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE
FINE WITH SOMEONE TO EXERCISE MY
PROGRESSES SHARE AND ASK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COVERED TO
ACTUALLY PRESENT THE THIRD OF
YOUR BILLS TODAY. WE WANT TO
GIVE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
CHANCE TO COME BACK AND
PARTICIPATE FULLY ON THE OTHER
TWO. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU IF
YOU COULD DO 25 24. I ABSOLUTELY
REFUSED TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, I
ACTUALLY HAVING RECONSIDERED,
PLEASE. YEAH SEE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BOERNER HORVATH
. WELCOME AND PLEASE PROCEED.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A B 22 OH,
FOUR. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
, MEMBERS AND CHAIR MAYBE 22.
OH, FOUR WOULD CREATE THE OFFICE
OF CLEAN ENERGY WORKFORCE WITHIN
THE LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO MONITOR
AND TRACK CARBON NEUTRAL
PROJECTS. AS WELL AS CREATE A
ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY TO SHIFT TO A CARBON
NEUTRAL ECONOMY, THEIR SPELLS
ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE,
ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY
AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, ABOUT
PEOPLE. THERE ARE MANY EFFORTS
LOCALLY REGIONALLY AND STATEWIDE
TO TRANSITION FROM FOSSIL FUELS
TO CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE TO REACH
OUR AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS.
WHETHER THAT BE SB 100, TARGET
OF 100% CARBON NEUTRAL RENEWABLE
ENERGY BY 2045. REDUCING
GREENHOUSE GASSES AND RELATED
THE EXPANDING THE ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MOVE
PEOPLE AND GOODS WITH RENEWABLE
ENERGY. IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE
HAVE A STATEWIDE OFFICE THAT
HOLDS ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS TRANSITION.
MAYBE 22 OH 46 ESTABLISHED THE
OFFICE OF CLEAN ENERGY WORKFORCE
, WHICH IN COORDINATION WITH
RELATIVE STATE, RELEVANT STATE
AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS WHEN
MONITOR AND TRACK CARBON NEUTRAL
PROJECTS AND CREATED WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY. JUST ABOUT
WORKERS, FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES AS THEY TRANSITION
TO SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE,
CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE. AS YOU
KNOW, I'M WORKING WITH
AMENDMENTS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
THAT WOULD ALIGN THE BILL WITH
HIM MINISTRATIONS TRANSITIONAL
STRATEGIES AS OUTLINED IN THE
BUDGET, I WILL BE SURE TO SHARE
THOSE AMENDMENTS WITH THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND STAFF.
ONCE I RECEIVED THEM, THE GOAL
IS TO HAVE THEM READY TO SHARE
IN JULY. I RESPECTFULLY SK FOR
YOUR VOTE. I WROTE THIS BILL
MYSELF. SO WHAT WE CALL THIS
SOMEBODY A TBH SPECIAL, SO I
HAVE NO WITNESSES AND HAPPY TO
TAKE ANY OF YOUR FEEDBACK.
THERE'S SO CALLED TBH SPECIAL. I
SEE. WE HAVE NO NO LEAD
WITNESSING SUPPORT GUYS. ANYBODY
HERE IN THE HEARING WITH LIKE
TESTIFYING SUPPORT. MAYBE. 22
OH, FOUR. MACHINE AND MISS
MODERATOR. IF YOU COULD PLEASE
CLEAR THE TELECONFERENCE LINE
FOR ANYBODY WISHING TO TESTIFY.
EXCUSE ME. IT'S SUPPORTIVE
ASSEMBLY BILL 22. OH, FOUR. FOR
ANYONE THAT HAS SUPPORT AT THIS
MOMENT. PRESS 10 ON YOUR
TELEPHONE KEYPAD. WE HAVE TWO
PEOPLE THAT HAVE QUEUED UP ONE
MOMENT WHERE WE GATHER THEIR
LINE NUMBER. THANK YOU.
WELL, FIRST GO TO LINE ONE. OH,
SEVEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. THIS IS ELISE PHÊN
DRINK WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS SUPPORT
THANK YOU NEXT, PLEASE. WE'RE
STILL GATHERING THEIR LINE
NUMBER ONE MOMENT. APPEARS TO BE
HAD NO RESPONSE. LOOKS LIKE IT'S
1 45 LINE 1 45. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS, MAX
PERRY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
RIVERSIDE IN SPORT. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE YOU'D LIKE
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF A B 22 OR
FOUR ON THE TELE TELECONFERENCE
LINE? YOU KNOW, NO FURTHER
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR MARJORIE.
LET'S COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM. IS THERE ANYBODY
HERE LIKE TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? A. B 22? OH, FOUR.
SEEING NONE. MR. MODERATOR, IF
YOU COULD THEN AGAIN QUERY THAT
TELECONFERENCE LINE. IS THERE
ANYBODY WISH TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? MAYBE
22 OR FOUR ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION
AT THIS MOMENT, PRESS ONE, THEN
ZERO ON YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION. AT THE
MOMENT HE WAS COME BACK TO
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM. SENATOR
LAIRD. UM I APPRECIATE THE WORK
OF THE AUTHOR. THIS IS GOOD
BILL, AND SO I WOULD MOVE THE
TBH SPECIAL ALSO KNOWN AS OR AKA
MAYBE, UH, MAYBE 20 TO 4. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR LAIRD
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU,
AMERICAN. SOMEONE PLEASE CALL
THE ROOM. FILE ITEM NUMBER 12.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS, SENATOR CORTEZ
E. SENATOR KOA BOGUE. SENATOR
DURAZO, SENATOR LAIRD PARADISE,
SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN, I THAT
BUILDS ON CALL WITH TWO VOTES.
THAT BILL HAS TWO VOTES, WE WILL
LEAVE IT ON CALL AND NOW WELCOME
TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CORA AND
AGAIN ASSEMBLY MEMBER. IF YOU'RE
OPEN TO IT, I'D LIKE TO PROCEED
WITH YOUR THIRD. BILL C 25 24,
WHICH WILL ALLOW TIME FOR SOME
OF THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
HOPEFULLY TO RETURN AND
PARTICIPATE IN THE OTHER TWO. SO
IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND ITS
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THE
ANALYSIS. A B 25 24 WOULD GIVE
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS AT SANTA
CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY THE OPTION TO MOVE
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD. TO RESOLVE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE COMPLAINTS. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, EVITA EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THE SUPERIOR COURT TO RESOLVE
COMPLAINTS, WHICH ARE
OVERBURDENED AND UNDERFUNDED AND
CAN OFTEN TAKE YEARS TO RESOLVE
THESE CASES. PERP IS A NEUTRAL
AGENCY THAT CAN PROVIDE
RESOLUTION RESOURCES FOCUSED ON
EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE
CONFLICTS. TRANSIT AGENCIES
ALREADY UNDER PURPOSE.
JURISDICTION INCLUDE SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL TRANSIT. L. A COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSLATION
AUTHORITY EMBARKED. A B 25 24
WOULD PROVIDE WTA'S EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATIONS THE OPTION TO OPT
IN TO PERVS JURISDICTION TO
ACCESS AN EXISTING AND EFFICIENT
RESOLUTION. RESOURCE FOCUSED ON
RESOLVING U. L. P S WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT IS
TINA KRI WITH AFSCME LOCAL 101
AND TAMMY JANNOTTA WITH S E I U
5 TO 1 TO TINA'S IN PERSON AND
TAMMY BY PHONE. I BELIEVE THANK
YOU. LET'S LET'S START WITH MISS
MACRI WELCOME. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS TINA KRI. AND I'M ASKING
BUSINESS AGENT FOR LOCAL 11. OH
ONE IN THE PAST 15 YEARS. ASK ME
AS MANY GRIEVANCES WITH THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, URGING
THEM TO ADDRESS DEEP SEATED
WORKPLACE ISSUES. SOME OF THESE
ISSUES HAVE CONTINUED FOR YEARS
WITHOUT BEING ADEQUATELY
ADDRESSED. UNRESOLVED WORKPLACE
ISSUES AND NEGATIVE WORKPLACE
CULTURE DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO
THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AS
EMPLOYEES ARE LEFT TO FEEL
DISREGARDED AND DESPONDENT WITH
THEIR VALID CONCERNS AROUND
WORKING CONDITIONS. OR
MISTREATMENT BY MANAGEMENT, AND
I'M NOT ADDRESSED THE HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT WITH CITED BY
MANY EMPLOYEES IN THE WAKE OF
THE VITA, MASS SHOOTING IN MAY
OF 2021, LEAVING NINE PEOPLE
DEAD. YET PROBLEMS ARE STILL NOT
BEING ADDRESSED IN A TIMELY
BATTER. AS NOTED ON JUNE 18TH OF
THIS YEAR JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO.
AT THE SAVOIA DIVISION, BUS YARD
, THREATS OF GUN VIOLENCE WERE
MADE, AND THE SHERIFF HAD TO
STEP IN. ASKED ME HAS NOT FILED
SEVERAL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
THAT WERE SUBSTANTIAL AND VALID
, BUT WE DID NOT HAVE THE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
TO PURSUE THESE IN COURT. BT
CURRENTLY EMPLOYS 10 IN HOUSE
ATTORNEYS WHOSE SALARIES ARE
PAID BY TAXPAYERS IN COMPARISON
TO OUR ASK ME LOCAL 101. WE HAVE
ZERO ATTORNEYS ON STAFF AND MUST
CAREFULLY BUDGET FOR OUR
MEMBERSHIP DUES TO ASSESS
WHETHER TO FILE A COMPLAINT
AGAINST WTA BASED ON OUR LOCAL
FINANCES. AS A RESULT, THE
DISTRICT IS NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR ALL VALID YOU LPS DUE TO THE
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS OF OUR
LOCAL BY ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO
ORGANIZE THAT VITA TO MOVE TO
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
BOARD, VITA AND ITS EMPLOYEES
WILL BE ABLE TO ASSESS A MORE
FAIR, TIMELY CONFLICT RESOLUTION
PROCESS. THANK YOU. AND I'M
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF
NEEDED. THANK YOU. AND NOW ON
THE LINE, WE HAVE TAMMY DINO TO
SC AU 5 21. PLEASE PROCEED, MR
NODA. THANK YOU. SKIN MORNING
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS CHAMPIONS KNOW THAT AND
I'M A VJ EMPLOYEE FOR OVER 27
YEARS. I AM ALSO THE REGION ONE
BY PRESIDENT FOR LEVEL 5 TO 1
AND CHAPTER CHAIRPERSON BARBIE
CHAPTER AND MY CAPACITY WITH FBI
UI NAVIGATE BOTH THE SUPERIOR
COURT SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD. AND
THE COURT SYSTEM. UM COMPLAINTS
ARE USUALLY DEFINED TO A JUDGE,
WITH LITTLE TO NO EXPERIENCE IN
LABOR LAW. FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGES, IN CONTRAST,
SPECIALIZE IN EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE
RELATIONS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
LAW. THE COURT PROCESS CAN TAKE
YEARS TO RESOLVE THE LP. WHILE
TENSIONS REMAIN BETWEEN WORKERS
AND THE DISTRICT. HERB IN
CONTRAST, HAS REDUCED IT BACK
WATCH AND LESS THAN 10 CASES.
ACCESS TO A FACTOR PROCESS WOULD
GO A LONG WAY TO RELIEVE
TENSIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
RESOLVED. CURBING ALSO A LESS
EXPENSIVE PROCESS, SAVING MONEY
FOR BOTH THE UNIONS AND THE
TAXPAYERS FUND EFFORTS. CURVE
DID NOT GUARANTEE WHEN SUCH
CHARGING UNIONS AND THE DISTRICT
WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO GRIEVANCES
AGAINST THE UNIONS FOR UNFAIRLY
WORK PRACTICES. IS A TWO WAY
STREET TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY
COMMUNITY DESERVES A TRANSIT
AGENCIES IS EFFICIENCY IS NOT
BOGGED DOWN BY UNRESOLVED
ISSUES. OUR COMMUNITY DESERVES
ACCOUNTABILITY. HAVING CURB AS
AN OPTION FOR CONFLICT
RESOLUTION, WITH ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR BOTH SIDES WILL HELP BUILD
TRUST INCREASE. HOW MANY IN THE
WORKPLACE AND WE DEFINITELY NEED
THIS TÂM. PLEASE PASS THE B 25
24 GRAND BEACH TO UNIONS ACCESS
TO THE SAME CONSTANT RESOLUTION
PROCESS THAT IS AVAILABLE TO
OVER 80% OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION, AND I'M AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THANK
YOU. LET'S COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM FOR ANY
WITNESSES. YOU LIKE. TEST RIGHT
SUPPORT OF A B 25 24.
CHRISTOPHER MAYER WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE
COUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES. WE
ARE PROUD CO SPONSOR OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SENATORS LOUIS COSTA
WITH THE STATE LEGISLATIVE BOARD
OF THE SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL
AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS,
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. SMART
TV AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MORNING MATTLAGE AM BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SEEMS NO OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, MR MODERATE. LET'S
RETURN TO THE TELECONFERENCE
LINE. IF YOU COULD PLEASE QUERY
THE LINE FOR ANYBODY WISHING TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF 25 24.
GRAVY 25 24 SUPPORT. PLEASE
BURST ONE, THEN ZERO ON YOUR
TELEPHONE KEYPAD AT THIS MOMENT.
IT APPEARS WE HAVE NOBODY
QUEUING OPPOSITE. THANK YOU.
LET'S COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM. IS ANYBODY HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM LIKE TESTIFYING
OPPOSITION TO 25 24. AGAINST
SEEING NONE, MR. MODERATOR
ANYBODY IN THE TELECONFERENCE
LINE WHO'S WISHING TO FIND
OPPOSITION TO A B 25 24? IF YOU
HAVE OPPOSITION AT THIS MOMENT,
PRESS ONE, THEN ZERO ON YOUR
TELEPHONE KEYPAD. BUT WE HAVE NO
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LET'S
COME ACK TO THE COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM TO THE COMMITTEE,
SENATOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IRONICALLY I HAD TO LEAVE THIS
HEARING THIS MORNING TO PRESENT
A VERY SIMILAR BILL ABOUT THE
SANTA CRUZ METRO TO THE PURSE
COMMITTEE IN THE ASSEMBLY. AND I
KNOW THERE ARE THERE HAVE BEEN
MANY OTHER BILLS THAT YOU LISTED
AND ALMOST ALL OF THEM. THERE
WERE TWO ISSUES. ONE WAS IS THAT
SOME OF THEM DISSOLVED BECAUSE
THE DIFFERENT UNITS WEREN'T N
SUPPORT. I HEARD TWO UNITS IS
EVERYBODY IN WTA OF THE
DIFFERENT ORGANIZED LOCALS AND
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THERE IS
NO OPPOSITION FROM ANY OF THE OF
THE AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS
THAT ALL THE BILLS THAT HAVE
PASSED THUS FAR. EITHER HAD NO
OPPOSITION FROM MANAGEMENT OR
SUPPORT FROM MANAGEMENT. AND IN
FACT IT TOOK THE BART 13 TRIES
TO GET IT DONE UNTIL MANAGEMENT
CAME ON AND SUPPORT. JUST ASK IF
THERE ARE ANY REASONABLE
REQUESTS FOR FROM THE MANAGEMENT
. WILL YOU DEAL WITH THEM BEFORE
THIS BILL? ABSOLUTELY TO THE
FLOOR, CLOSE WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TÌM
ACTUALLY RUNNING A BILL ONE OF
THEIR BILLS THIS YEAR AS WELL.
AND SO THE LINES OF
COMMUNICATION ARE ALWAYS OPEN.
GREAT WELL, I APPRECIATE THE
DISPARITY AND THE FACT THAT, UH,
THAT WAS MENTIONED BY ONE OF THE
LEAD WITNESSES ON THE AH, JUST
THE RESOURCES ON ONE SIDE AND
THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE COURTS
UNLESS IT GOES TO PURPOSE SO I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU,
MR CAR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
? RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
EYEBALL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
VERY GOOD. WE HAVE EMOTION FROM
SENATOR LARRY. MADAM CONSULTING.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE. THE MOTION IS DUE
PAST BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY SENATOR
CORTEZ E. ORTEZ EI SENATOR KOA
BUG, SENATOR DURAZO. SENATOR
LAIRD LAIRD. I SENATOR NEWMAN
NEWMAN. I THAT BUILDS ON CALL
WITH THREE I VOTES. THANK YOU.
LET ME NOW HAND THE DEVIL BACK
TO OUR CHAIR, SENATOR COURTESY.
WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU, SENATOR
NEWMAN APPRECIATE VERY MUCH.
YOUR PRESIDING IN MY ABSENCE. I
UNDERSTAND. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP
GOING HERE WITH SOME MEMBER CORA
. IS THAT CORRECT TO 84 37? IF
WE MR SHERIFF, WE COULD DO ITEM
5 80 93 1ST JUST FOR WITNESS
AVAILABILITY ISSUE. SURE JUST
APPRECIATE THAT. WE'LL TAKE A B
9 83. NEXT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS AND, UM
1987. RECORDING INDUSTRY LOBBIED
TO EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDE RECORDING
ARTISTS FROM SECTION 28 55
PROTECTIONS, ARGUING THAT RECORD
COMPANIES MADE LARGE INVESTMENTS
IN AN ARTIST'S CAREER BASED
PRIMARILY ON THE PROMISE THAT
THE ACT WOULD DELIVER A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF ALBUMS UNDER THE
CONTRACT. THE MUSIC BUSINESS IS
ALSO UNDERGONE MASSIVE CHANGES
DIGITAL MEDIA AND ONLINE
STREAMING AND RECORD LABEL STAND
TO PROFIT ENORMOUSLY FROM THESE
NEW DIGITAL PLATFORMS BECAUSE
THE MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTION
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOLVING AN
ARTIST IS ONLY A FRACTION WHAT
IT USED TO BE. DESPITE THESE
GAINS, ACCORDING CONTRACTS
REMAIN OUTDATED, WITH TERMS
FAVORING THE RECORD LABELS.
RECORDING ARTISTS FOR TOO LONG
HAVE BEEN HELD UNDER THE CONTROL
OF AN INDUSTRY HOLDS THE
LEVERAGE AND DECIDES THEIR
ABILITY TO WORK AND THEIR
CAREERS AS AN ARTIST. UM I HAVE
TAKEN AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
ADDRESSED SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS. I REALLY
DO APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION FOR
ENGAGING BUT SINCE THE ORIGINAL
BILL INTRODUCED IN THE ASSEMBLY
AND THE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS,
I PLEDGED TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO MOVE THE
BILL FORWARD. AND STRIKE A
BALANCE THAT IS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ABOUT THE MUSIC
ARTISTS AND THEIR LABELS, AND I
ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS MY
APPRECIATION TO THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALSO
WORKING WITH MY STAFF AND MY
LABOR COMMITTEE STAFF. ON THIS
ON THIS LEGISLATION. HAD THIS.
YOU KNOW, THE. SEVEN YEARS
STATUTE IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO
HAS BEEN AROUND FOR OVER 150
YEARS. AND I THINK IS THERE FOR
A REASON. AND THIS THERE HAS
BEEN A THIS EXEMPTION THAT I
BELIEVE HAS UNFAIRLY PLACED
ARTISTS IN A DIFFICULT POSITION
THAT IN MANY CASES TAKES AWAY
THEIR SELF DETERMINATION. AND SO
I'D RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AN I
VOTE. AND WITH ME TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT. IS WILLIE
PROFIT STICKERS AND ACTIVISTS
AND MUSIC EXECUTIVE WITH THE
BLACK MUSIC ACTION COALITION.
PEACE I AM WILLY PROFIT STICKERS
I AM HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA MUSIC WORKERS TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT OF A B 983 THE
FAIR ACT. I AM HERE AS THE VOICE
OF THE ARTISTS, THE MUSIC
WORKERS, I ECHO THE WORDS OF THE
MUSIC WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN
BRAVE ENOUGH TO SPEAK UP AND BE
ADVOCATES FOR THOSE AFRAID TO
SPEAK OUT. CALIFORNIA WORKING
MUSICIANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
LAW, SPECIFICALLY, THE SEVEN
YEAR STATUTE CALIFORNIA LABOR
CODE SECTION 2855. UNDER THE
SEVEN YEAR STATUTE, NO
CALIFORNIA WORKING WORKER CAN BE
HELD IN AN ERRONEOUS ONE SIDE OF
THE CONTRACT FOR MORE THAN SEVEN
YEARS, ONLY MUSIC WORKERS WERE
EXCLUDED FROM THE SHIELD. THIS
LAW PROVIDES. THERE IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR MUSIC WORKERS
NOT TO RECEIVE EQUAL PROTECTION
UNDER THE SEVEN YEAR STATUTE.
UNTIL 1987 THE SEVEN YEAR
STATUTE DIP, PROTECT EVERYONE
FROM BEING TRAPPED AND UNFAIR,
PROTRACTED CONTRACTS FOR DECADES
, ALL CALIFORNIANS WERE TREATED
EQUALLY AND CAN SEEK SHELTER.
UNDER THE STATUTE. IN THE RECORD
BUSINESS WAS GREAT. HEALTHY FOR
ARTISTS AND HEALTHY FOR THE
MAJOR LABELS BY THE 1987, THE
THREE MAJOR LABELS WHO ARE
COLLECTIVELY VALUED AT OVER $100
BILLION USE THEIR POWER TO
CHANGE THE SEVEN YEAR STATUE,
EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDING RECORDING
ARTIST FROM THE STATUTES
PROTECTION THAT WAS WRONG. THAT
IS UNFAIR AND WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION AND VIOLATES THE
MUSIC WORKERS RIGHT TO EQUAL
PROTECTION. THERE IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE THREE
MAJOR LABELS TO RECEIVE MORE
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT THAN ANY
OTHER EMPLOYER IN THE STATE.
THAT DISTINCTIONS AND THE
JUSTIFICATIONS THEY HAVE USED.
ARE BASELESS. THE LABELS TRIED
TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE BY
SAYING THEY ARE THE ONLY
EMPLOYERS WHO PAY UPFRONT MONEY
TO AN EMPLOYEE. THAT IS
INCORRECT FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST
MANY EMPLOYERS, INCLUDING
HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS, PAY OFF FRONT
MONIES TO EMPLOYEES SECOND, AND
, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE LABELS
DO NOT MAKE UP FRONT INVESTMENTS
THAT COVER MULTIPLE ALBUMS.
RECORD CONTRACTS ARE DESIGNED BY
THE LABELS TO BE A PAY AS YOU GO
MODEL. THE RECORD LABELS MAKE
ONE ADVANCED TO COVER ONE ALBUM.
THE LABEL OWNS THE COPYRIGHT ON
THAT ALBUM, THE LABEL
UNILATERALLY DECIDE WHETHER TO
MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT ARTIST. IF
THE LABEL ISN'T MAKING ANY MONEY
, THEY DROPPED THE ARTISTS AND
THEIR INVESTMENT ENDS. LET ME BE
CLEAR. NO LABEL PAY AN ARTIST
MONEY ON SIGNING A RECORD
CONTRACT THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO
WITH WHAT HAPPENS EIGHT YEARS
LATER. THEY PAY FOR ONE ALBUM,
AND THEY OWN THAT ALBUM. THEY
UNILATERALLY DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN
MORE THAN ONE ALBUM. LABELS
INVEST IN PEOPLE. I MEAN LABELS
INVEST IN AND ON PRODUCTS AND
RECORDS THEY DO NOT INVEST IN
AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OWN
PEOPLE. BUT THE RESULT OF THE
1987 CHANGE RECORD CONTRACTS
WITH MAJOR LABELS TODAY ARE
INDENTURED SERVITUDE IS THAT
SIMPLE. AND THIS IS AN ISSUE OF
SOCIAL AND RACIAL JUSTICE. LOOK
AT THE CHARTS. THE MAJOR ARE
THEY THE MAJORITY OF THE ARTIST
DRIVING LABOR PROFITS TODAY?
PEOPLE OF COLOR LOOK AT THE WALL
STREET REPORT THE HEAD OF A
MAJOR LABELS AND BOARD MEMBERS
WHO BENEFIT FROM THOSE PROFITS
ARE NOT PEOPLE OF COLOR. THE
TERMS OF THE RECORD CONTRACTS
EQUITABLE BECAUSE THE LABELS
HAVE ALL THE POWER THE FAIR ACT
WON'T CHANGE THE ERRONEOUS TERMS
OF THOSE CONTRACTS, BUT IT WILL
MAKE THE ARTIST LIKE EVERY OTHER
CALIFORNIA WORKER. CAN ESCAPE
THOSE INEQUITIES. I'M SORRY, CAN
ESCAPE THOSE INEQUITABLE TERMS
AFTER SEVEN YEARS. THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THEY GET TO THEY GET THEY
GET THEIR RECORDS BACK AFTER THE
SEVEN YEARS, THE LABEL OWNED
THOSE RECORDS. BUT UNDER THE
FAIR ACT, THE MUSIC WORKERS
WON'T BE FORCED TO WORK UNDER
ONE SIDE OF TERMS FOR MORE THAN
SEVEN YEARS. SEVEN YEARS IS A
LONG TIME. AND YES, IT'S THE
ENTIRE TIME THE BEATLES WERE
SIGNED. ON BEHALF OF THE
ISLANDERS, WHO MAKE MUSIC THAT
WE ALL LOVE. PLEASE VOTE YES FOR
THE FAIR ACT, THE ONLY
OPPOSITION TO THE FAIR ACT OF
THE THREE MAJOR LABELS WHO ARE
DESPERATELY TRYING TO HOLD UNTIL
ITS SYSTEM THAT
DISPROPORTIONATELY LINE THEIR
POCKETS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
ARTIST. PLEASE DO NOT DENY MUSIC
WORKERS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
THE SEVEN YEAR STATUE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THESE THREE MAJOR
CORPORATIONS, THE FAIR ACT ENDS
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ARTISTS
AND RESTORES THE INTENTIONS OF
THE SEVEN YEAR STATUE TO ALLOW
ALL CALIFORNIANS TO FREE
THEMSELVES UNDER UNFAIR
CONTRACTS AT THE SEVEN YEARS
EQUAL PROTECTION FOR MUSIC
WORKERS IS ALL THAT WE ASK FOR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF
THE FAIR ACT. ALRIGHT WE
APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY JUST A
REMINDER. WE ALLOW TWO MINUTES%
FOR BLEED SUPPORT. WITNESSES
LEAD OPPOSITION WITNESSES. PART
OF THE PURPOSE IS TO KEEP THE
PETITIONING OF THE COMMITTEE TO
A DEGREE OF FAIRNESS. AND SO WE
ASK EVERYONE TO ABIDE BY THAT
BECOMING BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ROOM. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISHES TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT? ON 9 83. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR EDUARDO MARTINEZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, PREDATOR AND SUPPORT. MR CHAIR MEMBER SHANE GASSMAN
ON BEHALF OF SAG, AFTRA, PROUD
CO SPONSOR AND IN SUPPORT. MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS DOMINIC
TOMORROW HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
MUSIC ARTIST COALITION SPONSORS
OF THE BILL HERE IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. SEE, NO ONE
ELSE COME FORWARD WILL GO TO THE
TELECONFERENCE, ALIGN AND S THE
MODERATOR TO POLICE QUÊ UP ANY
SUPPORT WITNESSES AT THIS TIME?
ON A B 9 83. ANYBODY WOULD
SUPPORT ON THIS BILL AT THIS
MOMENT, PRESS ONE THAN ZERO AND
YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD. WE DO
HAVE ONE PERSON THAT DID QUEUE
UP AND W'RE GATHERING THEIR
LINE NUMBER RIGHT NOW. THANK
YOU.
THAT WILL BE FROM LINE NUMBER. 1
40, PLEASE GO AHEAD. COME ON.
YOU HEAR ME? PLEASE PROCEED. YES
IT IS SIMPLY CLOSED, SUPPORTED
89 83. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE? MODERATOR? NO ONE
ELSE HAS QUEUED UP. OKAY. THANK
YOU. WELL KNOW, GO TO
OPPOSITION. AND LEAD OPPOSITION
WITNESS JULIAN PETTY, BUT WE
ALSO HAVE DAVID BLACKBURN ALL
ASSUME JULIAN PETTY IS HERE.
YES, I'M HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. I AM
JULIAN PETTY, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND HEAD OF BUSINESS
AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, BUT WANT TO
RECORDS? WHICH IS PROUDLY
HEADQUARTERED IN DOWNTOWN LOS
ANGELES. THE ARTS DISTRICT, A
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SENATOR
DURAZO. I OVERSEE ALL BUSINESS
AND LEGAL AFFAIRS FUNCTIONS OF
THE LABEL, INCLUDING NEGOTIATING
AND RENEGOTIATING RECORDING
AGREEMENTS. PRIOR TO JOINING ONE
OF RECORDS IN 2000 AND 19
REPRESENTED MAJOR ARTISTS IN
THEIR NEGOTIATIONS WITH MAJOR
RECORD LABELS, SO I HAVE A DEEP
FAMILIARITY WITH THE TERMS OF
RECORDING AGREEMENTS ACROSS THE
INDUSTRY. CALIFORNIA HAS ALWAYS
BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF MUSIC
WHERE YOUNG ARTISTS COME TO MAKE
THEIR MARK. TODAY THE INDUSTRY
AND THE ARTISTS ARE THRIVING
WITH HIGHER ROYALTIES AND
ADVANCES THAN EVER. IN THE HUGE
MUSIC ECONOMY OF BOOSTING OUR
STATE'S BOTTOM LINE.
UNFORTUNATELY 9 83 WOULD CHANGE
ALL THAT DESTROYING THE
FOUNDATION OF CALIFORNIA'S MUSIC
BUSINESS AND HARMING THE NEXT
GENERATION OF ARTISTS BY
TRANSFORMING ROYALTIES AND
INVESTMENT THEY NEED TO WEALTHY,
SUCCESSFUL ARTISTS WHO DON'T
BILL. SUPPORTERS CLAIM RECORD
LABELS ARE EXEMPT FROM
CALIFORNIA SEVEN YEAR STATUTE
THAT IS WRONG UNDER THE STATUTE
AND ARTIST HAS THE ABSOLUTE
RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE RECORDING
AGREEMENT AFTER SEVEN YEARS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CARLOS BILL IS
ATTEMPTING TO DO IS ELIMINATE
THE LABELED RIGHT UNDER THE
STATUTE TO SEEK DAMAGES WHEN AN
ARTIST TERMINATES THE AGREEMENT
BUT HASN'T DELIVERED PROMISED
RECORDINGS. IT WOULD DEPRIVE THE
LABELS OF THE SAME BASIC RIGHT
TO SEEK DAMAGES. ANY PARTY TO A
CONTRACT HAS AND WHEN THE OTHER
SIDE JUST DOESN'T HOLD UP THEIR
END OF THE BARGAIN, MAKING THIS
A ONE SIDED CHANGE WOULD HANG A
CLOUD OF UNCERTAINTY OVER EVERY
RECORDING AGREEMENT IN OUR
STATE. FEWER ARTISTS WILL BE
SIGNED IN CALIFORNIA, AND THOSE
SIGNED WILL RECEIVE LOWER
ROYALTIES, ADVANCES AND OTHER
INVESTMENT. UNLIKE PREVIOUS TWO
BILLS THAT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME AND FAILED TO MAKE IT OUT
OF ASSEMBLY. 9 83 WOULD REQUIRE
AN ARTIST ANY THEIR AGREEMENT
UNDELIVERED RECORDINGS TO REPAY
QUOTE UNQUOTE CONTRACTUAL
ADVANCES AS LONG AS THE PAYMENT
WAS CREDITED BACK TO THE
ARTIST'S OWN ROYALTY ACCOUNT.
THAT CHANGES NOTHING. REPAYMENT
OF A PORTION OF ADVANCES WOULD
BE A DROP IN THE BUCKET IN TERMS
OF MAKING RECORD LABELS AND
THE BILL WOULD STILL BAR
RECOVERY OF LABEL INVESTMENT.
BUT DON'T TAKE THE FORM OF CASH
ADVANCES LIKE MARKETING AND
PROMOTION OR ANY UPSIDE FROM
UNDELIVERED RECORDINGS. RECORD
LABELS HAVE NEVER WORKED HARDER
TO FORGE FLEXIBLE, SUPPORTIVE
PARTNERSHIPS THAT HELP ARTISTS
ACHIEVE THEIR CREATIVE AND
COMMERCIAL GOALS WILL BE 9 83
WOULD BRING THAT PROGRESS TO A
HALT. THREATENING CALIFORNIA'S
MUSIC, LEADERSHIP AND THE
STATE'S ECONOMY. BUT THESE
REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
THE 1983 AND ASKED FOR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU WERE
TESTIMONY, MR BLACKBURN. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS DAVID BLACKBURN. I'M
DIRECTOR AT NEAR ECONOMIC
CONSULTING TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION TO 9 83. MY PRACTICE
FOCUSES ON THE ECONOMICS OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ANTITRUST
AND COMMERCIAL DAMAGES. I'VE
TESTIFIED ON THESE ISSUES MANY
TIMES, OFTEN WITH RESPECT TO
SOUND RECORDINGS. AND THE MUSIC
INDUSTRY IN FEDERAL COURT BEFORE
THE COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD AND
ANOTHER PROCEEDING. I FOLLOWED
THIS ISSUE CLOSELY SINCE THE
INTRODUCTION OF A B 13 85 AND A
B 29 26 IN THE PAST, BOTH OF
WHICH FAILED TO ADVANCE THROUGH
THE ASSEMBLY. I'VE RECENTLY
UPDATED MY WORK WITH RESPECT TO
A B 9 83. IN A PAPER TITLED THE
ECONOMICS OF CALIFORNIA'S
PROPOSED BILL, HB 983. WHILE THE
SPONSORS HAVE NARROWED THE BILL
SCOPE IN SOME WAYS, A B 9 83 HAS
THE SAME CORE FLAW AS ITS
PREDECESSORS. THE BILL WOULD
ELIMINATE A RECORD LABEL
STATUTORY RIGHT TO SEEK DAMAGES
WHEN AN ARTIST ENDS THE
RECORDING DEAL UNDER THE STATE
SEVEN YEAR RULE, BUT IT'S NOT
DELIVERED RECORDINGS THEY AGREED
TO MAKE IN THE CONTRACT. THE
ECONOMICS OF THIS IS VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD IF YOU TAKE AWAY
ONE PARTY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE A
CONTRACT, YOU WILL ENCOURAGE
BREACHES BY THE OTHER PARTY AND
REDUCE THE OVERALL VALUE OF THE
DEAL. IN THE CONTEXT OF
RECORDING AGREEMENTS. WHAT THIS
WOULD MEAN IS THAT RECORD
COMPANIES WOULD BE LESS WILLING
TO INVEST IN ARTISTS TO CONTROL
THEIR COSTS UNDER THE CONTRACT,
SINCE THEY WOULD FACE MORE
UNCERTAINTY AND RISK. ADVANCES
PAID TO THE ARTIST WOULD LIKELY
GO DOWN AND FEWER ARTISTS WOULD
LIKELY BE SIGNED TO RECORD DEALS
IN CALIFORNIA. THE ARTIST WHO
WOULD BENEFIT OR ESTABLISHED
ACTS THOSE WHO COULD FORCE
LABELS TO PAY PREMIUM RATES TO
AVOID WALKING AWAY WITHOUT
DELIVERING THE PROMISED
RECORDINGS. NEW ACTS UNPROVEN
TALENT AND BANDS WITH LESS CLEAR
CUT COMMERCIAL PROSPECTS WOULD
ALL LIKELY SUFFER. SUPPORTERS OF
THE BILL POINT TO A FEW
ANECDOTES FROM FAMOUS ARTISTS
WHO CRITICIZED THEIR CONTRACT OR
ENDED UP IN A DISPUTE WITH THEIR
LABELS AFTER ACHIEVING SUCCESS,
BUT I'VE SEEN NO ECONOMIC THEORY
OR LOGICAL EXPLANATION TO
SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT
ELIMINATING THE DAMAGES REMEDY
WON'T DRIVE DOWN THE VALUE OF
RECORDING DEALS. AH! THIS IS A
RISKY PROPOSAL THAT WOULD DEEPLY
CHANGE THE ECONOMICS OF
RECORDING CONTRACTS. ECONOMICS
IS VERY CLEAR IN ONE THING THAT
INCENTIVES MATTER AND WHAT A B 9
83 WOULD DO IS CHANGE INCENTIVES
IN A WAY THAT WILL RESULT IN
LESS INVESTMENT IN NEW ARTISTS
AND LESS INVESTMENT INVESTMENT
IN DEVELOPING ARTISTS. ECONOMICS
LIKE I SAID, IT'S CLEAR WHETHER
YOU HAVE A LOT OF MONEY OR YOU
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. YOU
RESPOND TO INCENTIVES. UH, AND
THE INCENTIVES ARE GOING TO BE
CHANGED UNDER 9 83 IN A WAY
THAT'S GOING TO LEAD TO LESS
INVESTMENT IN THESE THINGS IN
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA'S WISELY
REJECTED CALLS FOR SIMILAR
LEGISLATION IN THE PAST, AND I
URGE YOU TO BE RESPONSIBLE
STEWARDS OF THE STATE'S MUSIC
ECONOMY ONCE AGAIN FOR THOSE
REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE A
B 9 83. THANK YOU, MR BLACK.
WE'RE IN. IS THERE ANYONE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM
WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS AND
OPPOSED POSITION? NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSED PLEASE?
MARGARET GLADSTEIN HERE ON
BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP
AND OPPOSITION. ACTUALLY HOFFMAN
AND WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
OPPOSITION. JOE FLACCO ON BEHALF
OF THE RECORDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STRONG
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
. SEEN NO ONE ELSE COMES FORWARD
. WE'LL GO TO THE MODERATOR.
MODERATOR WOULD YOU PLEASE QUEUE
UP ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES AT
THIS TIME ON THE TELECONFERENCE
LINE? THANK YOU. THERE'S ANYBODY
IN OPPOSITION AT THIS MOMENT,
PRESS ONE AND ZERO ON YOUR
TELEPHONE KEYPAD. WE DO A ONE
GENETIC UP. THANK YOU HAVE
THREE. WAIT UNTIL WE GATHER
THEIR LINES.
PEOPLE GO TO LINE NUMBER 1 51,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS AND THAT OFFER
I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE
SANTA MONICA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN OPPOSITION TO A B 983. THANK
YOU. PEOPLE GO TO LINE NUMBER 1
58, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN. THIS IS LISA MORTON
ON BEHALF OF SONY MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT, RESPECTFULLY
URGING OPPOSITION. AND THAT WE
AHEAD. MY NAME IS ERIC TAYLOR
AND ON BEHALF OF COLUMBIA
RECORDS, I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
983. THERE IS NO FURTHER
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU, MODERATOR WITH THAT WILL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR COMMON OR DISCUSSION.
SENATOR NEWMAN. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR, SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN
INTERESTING TOPIC. THIS IS
INTERESTINGLY SIMILAR TO A BILL
THAT I BELIEVE HE WAS CINDER.
BECKER BROUGHT TO US. ABOUT A
MONTH AGO ABOUT MINOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL, WHICH WHICH IS IN SOME
WAYS RADICALLY DIFFERENT BUT IN
OTHER WAYS, INTERESTINGLY
SIMILAR IN THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE
ASPIRE TO PLAY PROFESSIONAL
BASEBALL. VERY FEW ACTUALLY
REACH THE MAJOR LEAGUES IN A
SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF
PEOPLE ASPIRE TO BE SUCCESSFUL
IN MUSIC AND VERY FEW ACTUALLY
MAKE A GOOD LIVING IN IT, SO I
UNDERSTAND IT. SHOW. I'VE GOT A
I'VE GOT A I THINK A COUPLE
QUESTIONS THROUGH THE CHAIR. I
THINK BEST TO START WITH MR
BLACKBURN. IF YOU DON'T MIND,
AND I APOLOGIZE, WOULD YOU KNOW
PRE COVID WOULD BE SITTING AT A
TABLE WOULD BE SIMPLER. THAT'S
FINE. THANK YOU COULD CALL DOWN
AT SCHOOL. IT'S AWKWARD AND SHOW
IT SHOW THE ASSERTION WAS MADE
THAT THAT THE INDUSTRY IS
DOMINATED BY THREE MAJOR LABELS.
AND I MEAN, IS THAT IS THAT TRUE
IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, AND IS
THIS AS TRUE AS IT WAS IN 1987
WHEN THIS PROVISION WAS FIRST
PASSED INTO LAW? WELL BACK IN
1987. THERE WERE MORE THAN THREE
MAJOR LABELS, BUT I THINK THE
INDUSTRY HAS BEEN DEMOCRATIZED
QUITE A BIT. THERE ARE THERE ARE
MANY PATHS. TO BECOMING A WELL
KNOWN OR RELATIVELY SUCCESSFUL,
RELATIVELY WELL KNOWN, UH,
RECORDING ARTISTS NOW THAT
DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN, UM, IT
WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY
COULDN'T DO WITHOUT A LABEL OF
SOME SORT. BUT TECHNOLOGY HAS
CHANGED THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF
VERY WELL KNOWN ARTISTS NOW WHO
STARTED OUT ON YOUTUBE OR THINGS
LIKE THAT, THAT YOU KNOW WE
COULDN'T EVEN HAVE IMAGINED
BACK. AND YOU MADE THE POINT
THAT THIS WOULD THIS WOULD
DISADVANTAGE CALIFORNIA IN THE
RECORD BUSINESS, UH, VIS A VIS,
YOU KNOW THE MUSIC ECONOMY IN
OTHER STATES. TO WHAT EXTENT HOW
HOW WOULD THAT ACTUALLY PLAY
OUT? WELL, I MEAN, I WAS I
COULDN'T BE CERTAIN BUT THE
MAJOR RECORD COMPANIES ARE BIG
CORPORATIONS THEY HAVE MM. THE
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS RIGHT
. THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE
THEY COULD MOVE JOBS AND MOVE
BUSINESS TO STATES WHERE THESE
RESTRICTIONS WOULDN'T HOLD. PRE.
SHE ATE THAT. NOW LET ME MOVE
UNTIL I SUED TO MR PERRY, IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND. AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT YOU NOT ONLY WORK FOR
WARNER NOW, BUT YOU WERE YOU
REPRESENTED ARTISTS PREVIOUSLY
RIGHT? YOU HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE
IN AND SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE, SO
MR BLACKBURN'S POINT, YOU KNOW,
I THINK EVERYBODY'S MADE THE
POINT THAT THE INDUSTRY IS
ACTUALLY DOING FAIRLY WELL RIGHT
AFTER A PERIOD OF VOLATILITY AND
CHANGE. UM ARTISTS ARE RECEIVING
ADVANCES. UM BUT. YOU KNOW, SO
AND SO, PRESUMABLY ANY ARTIST,
SAYING A DEAL IS FULLY APPRISED
OF THE CONTRACT INTO WHICH
THEY'RE ENTERING AND MY
UNDERSTANDING ARE THEY
REPRESENTED? YOU KNOW AT THE
TIME. TO WHAT EXTENT? ARE THEY
AWARE OR NOT AWARE OF THE
CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT AND
WHICH THEIR ARTISTS ARTISTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY HIGHLY
SOPHISTICATED ATTORNEYS, NO
MAJOR RECORD LABEL. I KNOW NO OF
WOULD DO A DEAL WITH AN ARTIST
THAT IS NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL. UM I AGREEMENTS INCLUDE
PROVISIONS THEIR REPS AND
WARRANTS AT THEIR COUNCIL, BUT I
CAN TELL YOU JUST FROM
PRACTICALITY AND THE DAY TO DAY.
WE DO NOT DO DEALS WITH ARTISTS
DIRECTLY. THERE IS ALWAYS AN
ATTORNEY THERE, AND TYPICALLY,
WE SEE THE SAME RETURNEES AGAIN
AND AGAIN, VERY SOPHISTICATED
FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN IN A DEAL
IN THE BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL
YEARS. AND OR ARGUABLY, THEY'RE
FULLY APPRISED AND PROBABLY
REPRESENTED CORRECT. UM AND CAN
YOU I MEAN AND AGAIN, LOOKING
THE OTHER WAY. I MEAN,
PRESUMABLY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
SIGN THESE DEALS. YOU DON'T HAVE
TO TAKE ADVANCES. BUT BUT TO THE
SUPPORT WITNESSES. POINT CAN YOU
MAKE IT? CAN YOU MAKE A GOOD
LIVING IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS
WITHOUT SIGNING WITH A LABEL AND
TAKING ADVANTAGE? ABSOLUTELY I
MEAN, NOW THE BUSINESS THERE IS
TO DO IT YOURSELF MODEL. THERE
ARE COMPANIES LIKE DISTRICT KID
AND CORE WHERE YOU PAY A FEE.
YOU UPLOAD YOUR MUSIC AND YOUR
IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS. THERE ARE
COMPANIES LIKE A WALL AND EMPIRE
, WHICH PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT
MORE SERVICES. BUT AGAIN, YOU
CAN ENTER INTO THESE DEALS.
SHORT TERM DEALS. YOU RETAIN
YOUR MASTER RECORDINGS AND
YOU'RE IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS.
THEY PROVIDE RADIO SUPPORT,
BARGAINING SUPPORT, ETCETERA.
AND THEN THERE IS THE MODEL THAT
I WORK FOR THE MAJOR RECORD
COMPANY WHERE WE INVEST HEAVILY
ON THE FRONT END. WITH ADVANCES
, BUT WE ALSO INVEST HEAVILY IN
MARKETING AND PROMOTION. SO I
MEAN, WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF
HITS AND STARS. WE INVEST
HEAVILY AND WE EXPECT AND WANT
TO BE IN RELATIONSHIPS FOR YEARS
AND YEARS TO COME. AYE WARNER.
WE'RE STILL PUTTING OUT RECORDS
FROM NIL YOUNG. WE'RE PUTTING
OUT RECORDS FROM RED HOT CHILI
PEPPERS. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT
HAVE BEEN SIGNED TO THE LABEL 20
PLUS YEARS, SO WE LOOK FROM LONG
TERM RELATIONSHIPS FOR OUR LONG
TERM INVESTMENT. AND TO EITHER
THE WITNESSES WITH RESPECT TO
OTHER STATES. UH CHANGES IN
CONTRACT LAW AND OTHER STATES
AND WHAT HAVE WE SEEN OTHER
STATES AND WHAT'S BEEN THE
IMPACT? AN ARTIST FOR THE
INDUSTRY. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH
SIMILAR CHANGES IN OTHER STATES
. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. WE HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT FOOTPRINT IN NEW
YORK. WE HAVE AN OFFICE. WE HAVE
SEVERAL HIGH LEVEL EXECUTIVES
THERE. WE SIGNED PEOPLE THERE.
AND IF YOU KNOW THIS BILL
NEGATIVELY IMPACTS US. WE MAY
HAVE TO TRANSITION MORE OF OUR
BUSINESS TO NEW YORK. IN OTHER
STATES THAT WE OPERATE IN AND
LAST QUESTION AND SO TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE LEAD WITNESS
CHARACTER CHARACTERIZED THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ARTIST
AND LABEL WITH WHOM THEY'VE
SCIENTISTS AS INDENTURED
SERVITUDE. UM, CAN YOU SPEAK TO
THEM? YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DESCRIBE
? WHAT IS THAT RELATIONSHIP?
WHAT ARE THE IF THERE ARE
DOWNSIDES? WHAT ARE THEY? AND
HOW ARE THEY RECTIFIED TYPICALLY
WELL, I THINK MR PROFIT WAS
SPEAKING TO A RECORD BUSINESS OF
THE PAST. YOU KNOW, THE MUSIC
BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN A PERFECT
BUSINESS. THERE HAVE BEEN BOMBS
ALONG THE ROAD, THERE HAVE BEEN
VARIOUS ITERATIONS. AND TODAY'S
MUSIC BUSINESS IS ONE WHERE IT
IS A RELATIONSHIP OF PARTNERSHIP
AND OFTENTIMES MUSIC ARTISTS ARE
ABLE TO NEGOTIATE DEALS WHERE
THEY HAVE NET PROFITS WHERE THEY
ACTUALLY OWNED THE MASTER
RECORDINGS AND LICENSE THEM TO
THE RECORD LABELS. WHEN THEY
DON'T HAVE NET PROFITS. THEY
HAVE VERY HIGH ROYALTIES. 20%
RANGE 22% RANGE. THIS IS THIS IS
A BUSINESS THAT IS REFLECTING
JUST HOW RICH THIS RELATIONSHIP
IS REFLECTIVE OF HOW RICH THE
BUSINESSES NOW AND SO YOU KNOW,
THE BUSINESS THAT PROFIT IS
TALKING ABOUT IS NOT A BUSINESS
THAT I THAT I PARTICIPATE IN HIS
WHEN I STARTED IN THE BUSINESS,
I WAS ON THE ARTIST'S EYES AND
ARTIST ADVOCATE AND I WAS
FIGHTING FOR ARTISTS. AND IF THE
BUSINESS WAS WHAT IT WAS 20
YEARS AGO, I WOULD HAVE NOT HAVE
HOPPED SIDES IN TRYING TO RECORD
IN A TYPICAL YEAR. JUST SPEAKING
FOR YOUR YOUR LABEL, YOUR
COMPANY. HOW MANY ORDERS DO YOU
SIGN? AND WHAT ARE THOSE DEALS
LOOK LIKE WE SIGNED SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN 25 40 AX. RECORDS THOSE
DEALS ARE GENERALLY AN INITIAL
PERIOD PLUS THREE OPTIONS. THINK
OF EACH OPTION PERIOD AS GETTING
ANOTHER ALBUM. UM THOSE DEALS
CAN RANGE FROM, I THINK LAST
YEAR, ALMOST HALF OF THOSE DEALS
WERE NET PROFIT DEALS OR
LICENSING DEALS SO VASTLY
DIFFERENT THAN WHERE THE
BUSINESS WAS 20 YEARS AGO. UM
YOU KNOW, WE PUT UP ALL THE
MONEY FOR MARKETING PROMO. AH
TOUR SUPPORT EVERYTHING. THERE
WE TAKE THE RISK THE ARTIST GETS
IN ADVANCE THAT ADVANCE CAN
RANGE SUBSTANTIALLY. I MEAN, IT
CAN RANGE FROM $100,000 TO
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
. UM THAT'S TYPICAL RECORD DEAL
OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST
SEVEN YEARS, RIGHT? THAT'S KIND
OF THE SPAN. HOW MANY HOW MANY
DEALS IN YOUR EXPERIENCE HAVE
BECOME CONTENTIOUS, WHERE THE
ARTISTS WANTS TO TERMINATE WHERE
THERE ARE ISSUES NEEDED TO BE
RESOLVED. IN THAT CASE. I'VE
BEEN AT WARNER RECORDS FOR ABOUT
3.5 YEARS NOW, AND I CAN SPEAK
TO THAT PERIOD OF TIME. UM,
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. I
HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SORT OF
NOTICE SOMETHING I WANT OUT OF
MY DEAL. LIKE THAT IS I MEAN, WE
HAVE HAD NEGOTIATIONS WITH
MANAGERS AND LAWYERS TRYING TO
WORK OUT. WE'RE TRYING TO
NEGOTIATE NEW TERMS OR MAYBE
BETTER TERMS BECAUSE THEY JUST
HAD SUCCESS WITH A SINGLE OR
WITH AN ALBUM. BUT AS FAR AS
RECEIVING SOME SORT OF
TERMINATIONNOTICE, YOU KNOW, I
WANT TO BE OUT OF THIS THING.
NO, I CAN'T. I CAN'T THINK OF
WHAT? HOW OFTEN DO YOU NEGOTIATE
BETTER TERMS? WE NEGOTIATE
BETTER TERMS QUITE OFTEN.
GENERALLY, AFTER UH, FIRST
OPTION OR SECOND OPTION WHEN
THERE IS SOME PROOF OF CONCEPT
OF SUCCESS, BUT OUR DOOR IS
OPEN. WE DID. ONE LAST THING IS
, YOU'RE JUST VERY LUCKY THAT
NEITHER SENATOR HURTS. BURGER
WAS HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO
SING FOR YOU. DEAL THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. YEAH. OKAY, CENTER ALERT.
YES HE WANT ESTÁN AUTHORS SOME
QUESTIONS, BUT LET ME FOLLOW UP
WITH ONE WITH YOU. UM THANK YOU,
BECAUSE. I DON'T HAVE EXTENSIVE
BACKGROUND IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS
, AND SOME OF THIS IS VERY NEW
TO ME. YOU TALKED ABOUT? SIGNING
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 25 TO 40
ACTS IN A YEAR AND YOU TALKED
ABOUT OCCASIONALLY DOING BETTER
TERMS IF WE WERE TO STAND BACK
FROM THOSE ACTS. HOW WOULD YOU
CHARACTERIZE THEM IN TERMS OF
SOMEBODY THAT IS SEMI
ESTABLISHED. NEEDS THE VEHICLE
AND IS SORT OF TAKING OFF AND
SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE A
TOE IN THE INDUSTRY AND YOU ARE
REALLY LIFTING BY DOING THE
CONTRACT. BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S WITHIN THOSE
NUMBERS BECAUSE THESE THIS WOULD
AFFECT PEOPLE DIFFERENT BASED ON
THAT. I WOULD SAY THE LARGE
MAJORITY MAY HAVE A TOE IN THE
WATER, BUT THEY DEFINITELY DON'T
HAVE A WHOLE FOOT IN THE WATER,
AND THEY'RE NOT UP TO THEIR
WASTE IN THE WATER, UM, WITH THE
EMERGENCE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES,
ARTISTS ARE ABLE TO BUILD SOME
SORT OF FAN BASE, YOU KNOW, VIA
YOUTUBE, THE TIKTOK INSTAGRAM.
THOSE TOOLS ALSO ALLOW THEM TO
DO SOME SHOWS AND REALLY, YOU
KNOW, SORT OF HOME THEIR CRAFT.
BYE. WHAT WHEN THEY COME TO US,
AND WHEN THEY LOOK WHEN THEY'RE
SEEKING OUT THE HELP OF
PARTNERSHIP WITH MAJOR RECORD
LABEL WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS BECOMING INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL
STARS THAT THAT IS A VERY
DIFFERENT THING. I MEAN, WE HAVE
AFFILIATES ALL THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD. WE HAVE RELATIONSHIPS ALL
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. AND WE CAN
ACTIVATE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS
ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AND INSTANTLY
. SO YOU KNOW? YES, WE DO DEALS
WITH ESTABLISHED ACTS THERE THAT
ARE CHANGING LABELS. WE DO DEALS
WITH INDIA. HICKS WHO MAY HAVE
SOME MOMENTUM, BUT I WOULD SAY
THE LARGE MAJORITY ARE PEOPLE
ADJUST TO TELL. MAYBE THEY HAVE
A REALLY GOOD SONG. OR MAYBE
THEY PUT OUT AN INDIE PROJECT
THAT GOT SOME MOMENTUM. AND
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR US TO ADD
THE GAS ON THE FIRE TO TURN INTO
AN EXPLOSION TODAY BECOME A
GLOBAL SUPERSTAR. AND THEN WHEN
YOU TALK ABOUT THE GAS ON THE
FIRE FOR THOSE WHICH YOU SAID
WERE MAJORITY. HOW IS THAT
SEQUENCED? IF YOU HAVE A SEVEN
YEAR CONTRACT IN TERMS OF
INVESTMENT, DO YOU INVEST EARLY
IN A WAY THAT HELPS THEM MORE?
YES. WE INVEST EARLY HARD
DOLLARS A BEING IN ADVANCE TO
SECURE THE EXCLUSIVE SERVICES.
WE PAY HARD DOLLARS FOR
RECORDING COSTS. PUTTING THEM IN
A STUDIO VOCAL COACHES MOVING
THEM AROUND. UM WE PAY HARD
DOLLARS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT MARKETING, DIGITAL
MARKETING PROMOTION, ETCETERA.
WE ALSO WE ALSO DEDICATE OUR
MANPOWER. WE HAVE PEOPLE HAVE
TIRE COMPANY THAT IS DEDICATED
TO THE CREATION AND EXPLOITATION
OF MUSIC. AND THESE PEOPLE ARE
HOMED IN ON THIS ARTIST. SO THAT
CAN BE. IN OUR DEPARTMENT WAS
HELPING YOU CRAFT YOUR MUSIC AND
MAKE IT BETTER. THAT CAN BE THE
PUBLICITY DEPARTMENT THAT HELPS
YOU GET YOUR MESSAGE AND YOUR
SOUND ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
THAT'S THE RADIO PROMO
DEPARTMENT MAKES YOU GET YOU ON
THE RADIO. AS THE COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT THAT GETS YOU IN ALL
THE PLAYLISTS. SPOTIFY AMAZON
APPLE SO THERE AND IF YOU MAKE
THOSE INVESTMENTS EARLY AND THEY
START TO TAKE OFF IN A MAJOR WAY
YOU MENTIONED EARLIER. MAYBE
NEGOTIATING BETTER TERMS
CORRECT? WOULD AH, HOW WOULD
THAT TRIGGER OR HOW WOULD IT GET
TO BETTER TERMS? I MEAN, BECAUSE
THE I THINK I ASSUME THAT THE.
CONCERN OF THE ADVOCATES FOR
THIS BILL IS THAT YOU'RE LOCKED
IN. AND YES, IT'S AN INVESTMENT
THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE.
BUT THEN YOU'RE AT THE MERCY OF
THE LABEL. GETTING ALL THE
PROFITS ARE GETTING ALL THE
BENEFIT OF THAT INITIAL
INVESTMENT. HOW WOULD THERE BE?
ANY INCENTIVE TO GIVE BETTER
TERMS TO AN AN ARTIST THAT'S
TAKING OFF WITHIN THAT SEVEN
YEAR. THE ULTIMATE INCENTIVE IS
WE WANT MORE. AND THIS IS NOT
INDENTURED SERVITUDE. WE CAN'T
FORCE THEM TO PERFORM. SELL YOU
KNOW, AN ARTIST'S ATTORNEY AND
ARTIST MANAGER REACHES OUT AND
SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD
SOME INCREDIBLE SUCCESS WITH THE
LAST CAMPAIGN. I WOULD LIKE TO
LOOK INTO THESE POINTS AND THEN
THE NEGOTIATION AND DISCUSSION
STARTS. BUT THE LEVERAGE ALWAYS
IS YOU HAVE A PERSON WHO IS AN
INCREDIBLY TALENTED INDIVIDUAL,
AND WE CANNOT REPLICATING
CONTROL THAT PERSON AND PUT
MUSIC OUT. AND THEN THE THING
THAT IN. I JUST HAVE YOU HERE,
PROBABLY TO THE COMPLETE
DESTRUCTION OF THE AUTHOR WHO I
WAS ABOUT TO ASK THE QUESTION
ABOUT TO ASK YOU AND I WILL IS
IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS BILL.
UH HUH. WITHOUT AMENDMENTS. YOU
WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF A
BUNCH OF SEVEN YEAR CONTRACTS
WHERE YOU HAD ALREADY DONE
INVESTMENTS AND THAT WHOLE
DYNAMIC HADN'T PLAYED OUT. HOW
WOULD THAT PLAY OUT FOR YOU? IF
THIS WERE JUST LOBBED IN THE
MIDDLE OF YOUR EXISTING
CONTRACTS WOULD NEGATIVELY
IMPACT US. WE HAVE ALREADY
INVESTED THE HARD DOLLARS I WAS
TALKING ABOUT. WE'VE ALREADY
INVESTED. THE PEOPLE RESOURCES
SO. WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE WAY, BUT IT WOULD IT
WOULD SURELY NEGATIVELY IMPACT
THE BUSINESS. OKAY THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE GRANT SIRS, AND THEY
WERE OUT OF SEQUENCE FOR ME
BECAUSE I WANTED TO START WITH
THE AUTHOR. SO LET ME ASK THE
AUTHOR FIRST. I GOT AN EMAIL
THIS MORNING THAT YOU WERE
TAKING AN AMENDMENT. COULD YOU
DESCRIBE FOR EVERYONE? WHAT
AMENDMENTS YOU'VE TAKEN PRIOR TO
THIS HEARING. WE'VE TAKEN A LOT
OF AMENDMENTS. HE AND THE ONES
THAT MAYBE DIDN'T MAKE THE
ANALYSIS SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE
ABLE TO DESCRIBE THEM TO PEOPLE
WHAT YOU'VE MADE SENSE BUT I DO
WANT TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT AND
THE REASON WHY THIS IS BROUGHT
BEFORE YOU AS TWO BILLS IS ALSO
AT THE REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRY.
STARTED AS ONE BILL AND THE
PEOPLE PRESENTING THE OTHER BILL
NEXT. AND THAT WAS PART OF THE
REASON WHY WE ENDED. WE RAN INTO
BEN OUT OF TIME ON THE ASSEMBLY
SIDE AND BROUGHT THIS FORWARD AS
TWO BILLS AGAIN. THAT WAS A
STRONG REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRY
OF BOTH INDUSTRIES. AND WE DID
THAT. RETROACTIVITY HAS BEEN
REMOVED. SO TO YOUR QUESTION
THAT YOU JUST ASKED ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS TO EXISTING CONTRACTS.
WE REMOVED RETROACTIVITY AT THE
REQUEST OF THE INDUSTRY. UM WHAT
? LET ME JUST BRIEFLY EXPLORE
WHAT THAT MEANS. SO
RETROACTIVITY MEANS IF SOMEBODY
SIGNED A SEVEN YEAR CONTRACT TO
SEVEN YEAR CONTRACT IS ALLOWED
TO RUN THE SEVEN YEARS. THIS IS
A PROACTIVE APPROACH OF
PROSPECTIVE BILL THAT'S CORRECT.
OKAY? AND. IN LOOKING AT AND SO
THE COMMITTEE DID ASK FOR
AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE AGREED
TO. AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONTINUED CONVERSATION TRYING TO
GET SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY, BUT
IT HAS ONE ABOUT ROYALTIES.
THAT'S THE ONE I GOT TO EMAIL
ABOUT TRYING TO HAVE EVERYBODY
BE ON THE SAME STAGE. IF THEY
READ THE ANNOUNCEMENT, WE AGREED
. WE AGREED TO THAT AMENDMENT
THAT THE CHAIRS REQUESTED. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS LOOK AT THE END
OF THE DAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE WITH THE
INDUSTRY? CAN YOU JUST HEARD FOR
QUITE A FEW MINUTES FROM THE
INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE? UM AND
CLEARLY THERE? LOOK, WE PUT THE
THUMBS ON THE SCALES 35 YEARS
AGO. WHEN WE EXEMPTED WITHOUT
REAL GOOD POLICY REASONS. WE
EXEMPTED MUSICIANS ARTISTS THAT
WERE ASSIGNED FROM THE SEVEN
YEAR STATUTE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS
IF YOU'RE IN THE MIDST OF A
CONTRACT AND THE LABEL DECIDES,
YOU KNOW WHAT WE'VE INVESTED
ENOUGH UM, WE SAID FOUR ALBUMS
YOU'VE DONE TO. WHERE DID WE%
DECIDE THAT? WE'RE JUST GOING TO
STOP INVESTING. IN YOU AS AN
ARTIST, AND THERE'S STILL 34
YEARS LEFT. THE ARTIST CAN'T GO
ANYWHERE ELSE. OR IF THEY GET TO
THE END OF THE SEVEN YEARS AS
OPPOSED TO ANY OTHER SEVEN YEAR
STATUTE FOR SERVICE CONTRACTS,
EVERY OTHER SERVICE CONTRACT IN
THE STATE GETS THE END OF THE
SEVEN YEARS NOW AND THE LABEL
CAN SAY. OH, WELL, I USED TO
ALWAYS. YOU KNOW YOU DIDN'T YOU
DIDN'T MAKE AS MUCH YOU KNOW, WE
CAN PUT IT A BIT. DID ALL THIS
ADVANCE? UM AND YOU DIDN'T MAKE
WHAT WE WHAT WE EXPECTED TO
MAKE, OR YOU HAVE ONE MORE ALBUM
TO DO. AND THERE IS A DISPUTE
MAY BE CREATIVE DIFFERENCES OR
WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. IT GOES ON
TO EIGHT YEARS, NINE YEARS, 10
YEARS AND THEY GET TO SIT ON IT,
AND NOW THAT ARTIST IS TRAPPED,
AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WAS
MEANT BY INDENTURED SERVITUDE
WAS REALLY MORE ABOUT PUTTING
SHACKLES ON THESE ARTISTS AND
NOT GIVING THEM THEIR FREEDOM.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
RENEGOTIATION, THEY CAN ASK
RENEGOTIATION. THE REAL
ENGAGEMENT SHE ASIANS NOT AGREED
TO. THEY'RE STUCK IN THE SEVEN
YEAR CONTRACT. AND SO THAT'S
REMEMBER. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE
BIG ARTIST AS THE INDUSTRY'S
INDICATED. THIS IS ABOUT THOSE
ARTISTS THAT LOOK, THERE ARE
THREE MAJOR LABELS. NOW THERE
ARE MORE THAN THAT IN THE
EIGHTIES. AND THEN LET ME ASK,
WHY NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE
DISCREETLY RATHER THAN WITH
EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE BILL.
WHY NOT ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT
ALLOWS FOR REOPEN? ER, IN
CERTAIN TRIGGERS THAT IF
SOMEBODY IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE.
AS YOU SAID, FOR FOUR YEARS THAT
IT ALLOWS THAT REDRESS RATHER
THAN EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT'S IN
THE BILL. THAT'S A GOOD
QUESTION. BUT THIS DOES ACTUALLY
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THUNDER
STILL SOMEWHAT ON THE SCALE OF
THE RECORDING OF RED MY NOTES
UPSIDE DOWN BECAUSE MY FIRST
QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE WHY I
PUT THE THUMB ON THE SCALE. NOW
NOW YOU'VE MADE THAT REFERENCE.
WELL YEAH, SO IT'S INTERESTING.
YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION. YOU
ANSWERED THE QUESTION. BUT I
THINK THAT THAT THAT THE PIECE
OF THAT IS IF YOU WERE TO GO
BACK TO 1987. AND IN MANY WAYS
THIS ONE DOES WHAT HAPPENED IN
1987. BUT AS WITNESSES FROM ALL
SIDES SAID THERE HAVE BEEN
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES SINCE 1987
IN IN TERMS OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA
, AND THEY DIDN'T MENTION. THE
IDOL SHOWS ARE ALL THAT STUFF.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT
WAYS THAT ARTISTS MOVE THAT
DIDN'T EXIST IN 1987. SO THE
QUESTION IS, IS IF YOU WERE TO
UNDO WHAT YOU THOUGHT. HAS BEEN
AN INJUSTICE SINCE 1987. WHAT
WAY IS THERE TO DO WITH THAT
MIGHT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
CHANGES IN THE INDUSTRY THAT
HAVE HAPPENED SINCE. I THINK THE
CHANGES EVEN AS MENTIONED BY THE
EXECUTIVES. LOOK SOMEONE HAS
SOME VIRAL HIT. THEY'RE STILL
GOING TO WANT TO GO TO A LABEL
AND SIGNED THE ONLY GOT THREE
CHOICES OF MAJOR LABELS RIGHT IF
THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY MAXIMIZE
AND YOU KNOW, IT'S I THINK, ON
THE SURFACE, IT SEEMS LIKE OH,
YOU HAVE ALL THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
STARS. THEY'RE NOT MAKING MONEY.
VERY FEW ARE THERE'S NOT THEY SO
THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE
INDEPENDENTLY ON THEIR OWN IS
NO. BUT I THINK THE THING IS IF
THEY REALLY TAKE OFF IN THAT,
THEN THEY BECOME A CANDLE. BUT
IF THEY TAKE OFF THEN THEY HAVE
LEVERAGE AGAINST THE THEN THEN
THEY'RE IN THE CATEGORY OF
SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY HAS SOME
LEVERAGE WHEN THEY'RE SIGNING
THAT DEAL, IF YOU'RE JUST
TALKING ABOUT THOSE ARE DIPPING
THEIR TOE IN THE WATER. THAT'S
THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE NEED
TO PROTECT. AND THE 35 YEARS
AGO, WE CREATED AN EXEMPTION
THAT REALLY DID NOT HAVE A GOOD
POLICY REASON EXCEPT FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE LABELS. AND WHAT
WE NEED TO DO JUST MADE A
DISTINCTION. WHY NOT HAVE THE
DISTINCTION MADE IN THE BILL
RATHER THAN IT APPLIED TO
EVERYBODY? WELL, BECAUSE AT THE
END OF THE DAY, THE SEVEN YEAR
THE SEVEN YEAR EXEMPTION. THE
FACT THAT THERE IS AN EXEMPTION
IS AN INJUSTICE. THERE'S NO
REASON TO HAVE AN EXEMPTION
WHETHER SOMEONE'S A MEGASTAR OR
SOMEONE YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST DOES
DABBLING AND TRYING TO MAKE IT
IN THE INDUSTRY. THERE'S NO
REASON TO HAVE THAT EXEMPTION BY
HAVING THAT EXEMPTION YOU'VE
GIVEN AND HUGE AMOUNT OF
LEVERAGE TO THE INDUSTRY TO HAVE
TO TAKE THAT SELF DETERMINATION
AND IN THOSE RENEGOTIATIONS, AND
THEY HAVE ALL THIS LEVERAGE, BUT
THE THING IS ACTUALLY TO TAKE
OFF IN AN ANALOGY THAT WAS
BROUGHT UP BY SENATOR NEWMAN THE
INTERESTING THING IN THE MINOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL BILL IS THERE'S
A SEVEN YEAR CONTRACT. THAT'S
WHAT HE WAS DOING AND WHAT WE
HEARD FROM THE MANAGEMENT SIDE
OF THE HOUSE. IS THAT. THEY
WOULDN'T SIGN PEOPLE UNLESS IT
WAS THE LENGTH OF THAT CONTRACT
AND THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS IN THE
COMMITTEE WAS PABLO SANDOVAL
THAT, UH AND THEY WOULDN'T SIGN
PEOPLE FROM OUT OF THE COUNTRY
AND SO WHILE THERE WAS AN
INJUSTICE IN THE CONTRACT, THERE
WAS A FUNDAMENTAL UNDERLYING
THING ABOUT WHAT CAUSED PEOPLE
TO BE SIGNED IN THE CONTRACT. IT
SEEMS TO APPLY HERE, TOO. AND I
THINK THAT THE THING THAT
CONCERNS ME IS THIS IS REALLY
BIG AND THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS
, BUT IT DOESN'T ZERO IN ON THE
PROBLEMS. I WOULD DISAGREE FOR
TWO REASONS. THE BASEBALL
ANALOGY. DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE
WHEN IT GETS TO SEVEN PAST SEVEN
YEARS OF THE EIGHTH YEAR, NINTH
YEAR 10TH YEAR THAT PLAYER CAN
MOVE ON REGARDLESS WHETHER THEY
PERFORMED TO WHATEVER ANALOGY IS
APT BECAUSE THE BILL THAT WAS IN
FRONT OF US WOULD HAVE SCRAPPED
THAT SEVEN YEAR IN A WAY THAT
PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ASKED
TO COME IN. EVEN YOU KNOW, AND
SO WHILE THERE WAS AN INJUSTICE
THAT WAS APPARENT ON THE SEVEN
YEARS IF YOU WANT TO FOUR, ALL
THESE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE SIGNED
A CONTRACT BECAUSE OF IT, AND SO
THE THING ABOUT IT IS, IS THAT
AND YOU ADDRESSED ONE OF MY
QUESTIONS ALREADY BECAUSE ONE OF
MY QUESTIONS WAS GOING TO BE.
WHY NOT HAVE A TRANSITION? IF
YOU'RE GOING TO RETRO ACT. NO
RETROACTIVITY, IN EFFECT. THAT
IS A TRANSITION. THAT'S ABILITY
. SO I IF I CAN, I DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
AS TO WHY THIS IS THE APPROACH
AND YOU ALSO DIDN'T GET A CHANCE
TO TELL ME PRECISELY WHAT
AMENDMENTS YOU'VE TAKEN. SO AT
SOME POINT DO THAT, TOO. I THINK
WE HAVE TO GIVE THE AUTHOR AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANSWER ONE
QUESTION AT A TIME. I WILL. BUT
HE WHAT'S HAPPENING SUBJECTS
AFTER HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE FIRST
TWO RESPECTS INNER LEARNED IN
AND I MEAN THAT SINCERELY. WE
CAN'T ASK A SERIES OF COMPOUND
QUESTIONS AND THEN ASK HIM TO
CATCH UP. 10 MINUTES SEVEN YEAR
THE FIRST OF ALL THE SEVEN YEAR
STATUTE. THAT'S THE UNDERLYING
THEME HERE. IS THAT HAVING AN
EXEMPTION OF THE SEVEN YEAR
SERIES STATUES UNJUST. UNLIKE
THIS MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL
ANALOGY, WE ARE JUST SAYING THEY
SHOULD BE PART OF THAT SEVEN
YEAR STATUTE THAT APPLIES THE
SERVICE CONTRACTS LIKE EVERY
OTHER WORKER. IN THIS STATE
NUMBER TWO AND THIS GOES TO AN
AMENDMENT. WE GOT RID OF
RETROACTIVITY, SO THAT BUILDS A
BUILT IN TRANSITION. GOING
FORWARD NUMBER THREE. WE
RECOGNIZE THERE'S AN INVESTMENT
BY RECORD LABELS, AND THAT'S
WHERE THERE IS MAYBE A
DISAGREEMENT OF HOW YOU RECTIFY
THAT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE TOOK AN AMENDMENT FROM THE
COMMITTEE REGARDING THE
ROYALTIES. WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE AND FUTURE COMMITTEES
AND THE INDUSTRY AND THE
SPONSORS TO FIGURE OUT HOW ARE
BOTH SIDES MADE WHOLE BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT HAPPENING,
AND SO WITH THE WITH THE BILL,
UM, WITH THE BILL, TRYING TO
FOCUS ON ALLOWING THE SELF
DETERMINATION OF ARTISTS BUT
ALSO HAVING A RECOGNITION THAT
YES, THERE IS SOME UPFRONT
INVESTMENT, BUT I THINK THAT
IT'S YOU KNOW THE REASON WHY
THERE'S BEEN A FOCUS ON
ADVANCES, AND THAT'S THE
CLEANEST WAY. IT'S A HARD
FIGURE. THERE IS A SUGGESTION
FROM THE INDUSTRY OF SOME OTHER
KIND OF TANGENTIAL OR SOME
NUMBER THAT SOME FIGURE THAT IS
A REAL HARD DOLLAR VALUE THAT WE
CAN ACTUALLY ATTRIBUTE TO WHAT'S
BEEN INVESTED IN. BUT I WILL SAY
THIS LOOK, IT'S AN INVESTMENT.
IT'S ART. AND TO BE ABLE TO SAY
THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU KNOW
EVERYONE LEAVES AND ARTISTS
CONTRACT MADE WHOLE OR MADE TO
PROFIT. NO ONE HAS GUARANTEED A
PROFIT. IN CONTRACTS, ESPECIALLY
AS IT DEALS WITH ART, A MOVIE
FLOPS, A MOVIE FLOPS, THE STUDIO
LOSES A BUNCH OF MONEY AN ARTIST
FLOPS AFTER HAVING A BIG HIT
THEIR FIRST ALBUM, SECOND ALBUM
FLOPS, THE ARTIST LOSES MONEY
THAT THE MEMBER THE LABELS OAN
THE ALBUMS. WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT THE LABELS JUST BEING OUT
IF AN ALBUM IS UNSUCCESSFUL, IS
THE ARTIST ALSO AS OUT AS WELL.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIND AN
ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION, BUT ONE
THAT ACTUALLY EMPOWERS IN THIS
CASE, THE WORKER, WHICH IS THE
ARTIST AND RIGHT NOW, WE DO'T
HAVE A SET UP THAT DOES THAT. I
THINK IT APPROPRIATELY AND
FAIRLY. DOES THAT, UM, YOU KNOW
, IN A WAY THAT DEALS PRIMARILY
WITH THE SEVEN YEAR STATUTE RULE
ON THE EXEMPTION, BUT WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK IN TERMS OF
ENSURING THAT WE CAN GET TO A
PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WERE FOLKS
FEEL THEY'RE MADE WHOLE THAT THE
INDUSTRY IS NEVER GONNA GOING TO
AGREE WITH A FORMULA I COME UP
WITH BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE
MAKING A TON OF PROFIT AND THEY
HAVE ENOUGH CONTROL OF THE
ARTISTS TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO MORE THAN BE MADE WHOLE
BECAUSE EVEN IF THERE IS
ARTISTIC DIFFERENCES, WHATEVER
THEY GOT THE SEVEN YEAR STATUTE
THEY GOT THAT BACKSTOP TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
LEAVE. THEY'RE NOT GONNA LET
THEM LEAVE THAT CONTRACT. AND
TOLD THEIR MADE WHOLE OR THEY'RE
PAID BACK, WHATEVER THEIR
ADVANCES OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT
BE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
GET HIM. GET AWAY. GET OUT FROM
GOING TO MAKE SURE SENATOR VERY
NOW GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO
HIS NEXT QUESTION OR ANY
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. I THINK
THIS HAS BEEN REALLY HELPFUL,
AND THIS HAS BEEN REALLY
ILLUSTRATIVE AND I THINK THERE'S
STILL LOTS OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES
IN THE MIDST OF THIS, BECAUSE
HOW BIG IT IS AND MY FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S WORTH
MOVING ALONG AND KNOWING THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO REALLY WORK TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS,
AND SO YOU KNOW, I CAME INTO
THIS. THIS HEARING GENUINELY
UNDECIDED AND I STILL THINK
THERE'S FLAWS THAT YOU REALLY
NEED TO ADDRESS AT THIS SINCE Ó
I AM WILLING TO VOTE TO MOVE IT
ALONG AND UNLESS YOU AND LET YOU
DO THAT, BUT JUST WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT I THINK THIS
BILL STILL NEEDS A LOT OF WORK
IF IT'S GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND THANK YOU TO THE AND I'M
SORRY. I KNOW THIS HAS TAKEN A
WHILE. SO I WANT TO COME BACK.
YOU MADE, UH, ASSERTION SOON.
REMEMBER THAT, UM IF THE ALBUMS
OF FLAB YOU KNOW, THE ARTIST
LOSES MONEY AS WELL, PRESUMABLY
AN ARTIST WHO GETS A BIG ADVANCE
AND SATISFIES THE TERMS OF THEIR
DEAL. DO THEY LOSE MONEY? HOW
WOULD THEY LOSE MONEY? AND IF MR
YOU PLEASE? YOU RESPOND, AND I'D
LIKE TO ASK MR YAHOO! THANK YOU,
MR SENATOR. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
WELL FIRST OF ALL IN ADVANCE IS
A PAYMENT FOR THAT ARTIST,
TALENT, TIME AND ENERGY IN
CREATING AN ALBUM. AND THEY ALSO
PRESENTLY WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF
RELATIVE ARRANGEMENT. SO YOU
KNOW, OR SOME OTHER KIND OF
INCENTIVE AND INCENTIVES SO THAT
IF AN ALBUM DOES WELL BASED ON
SALES, THEY GET MORE MONEY, JUST
LIKE WITH MOVIES AND WITH OTHER
SO THE ADVANCE IS PAYMENT FOR
THE TALENT TÌM. AND ENERGY THAT
ARTIST AT THE EXCLUSION OF ANY
OTHER LABEL JUST RIGHT. THAT'S
NOT LOSING MONEY. THAT'S NOT
MAKING MONEY, RIGHT. THAT'S NOT
REALIZING YOUR FULL RETURN.
CORRECT WHEN YOU SAY LOSING
MONEY SIMPLY, THEY'RE NOT
REALIZING THAT, LIKE LIKE THE
FOUR THE COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE
ASSERTION, RIGHT? BUT THEY'RE
BEING PAID THAT I MEAN, THEY'RE
THEY'RE BEING PAID AND GIVEN AN
ADVANCE. THEY'RE BEING GIVEN AN
ADVANCE AND BEING PAID SO THAT
NOW THEY CAN INVEST THEIR TIME
AND ENERGY INTO IT. CORRECT.
MAYBE THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NOT
OUT MONEY, NECESSARILY IF THEY
HAD THAT ADVANCE, BUT THEY HAVE
EVERY INCENTIVE EVEN MORE SO
THAN ANYONE TO MAKE THAT ALBUM
SUCCESSFUL. SO IF AN ALBUM IS
NOT SUCCESSFUL, NOT ONLY DOES IT
PICK AWAY THERE, YOU KNOW THE
PROFIT THAT THEY CAN MAKE OFF
THE ALBUM, BUT ALSO NOW IT
DIMINISHES. THE ABILITY FOR THE
NEXT ALBUM IS SUCCESSFUL OR MORE
INVESTMENT FROM THE LABEL
BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T DO WELL,
NOW THE LABEL CAN DECIDE. HEY
WE'RE NOT GOING TO INVEST AS
MUCH IN THE NEXT ALBUM BECAUSE
THE FIRST ONE DID WELL, THEY
DIDN'T DO AS WELL WHICH CAN
FURTHER SO MY POINT IS THAT IT'S
NOT LIKE IT'S A THAT THERE ARE
WHENEVER AN ALBUM DOESN'T DO
WHAT IT DOESN'T DO WELL. THERE
ARE TWO LOSERS IN THAT
SITUATION. IT'S NOT LIKE THE
ARTIST IS CELEBRATING THAT. I
MEAN, I THINK THAT'S TRUE. BUT I
MEAN, THIS IS CREATIVE BUSINESS,
AND THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF THE I
ASSUME THE LABELS RISK, RIGHT. I
MEAN, IT IS PURELY IT IS PURELY
THE LABELS RISK. AND TO GO ONE
STEP FURTHER. IF THE ALBUM FLOPS
, WE DON'T GET THE MONEY OUT. WE
DON'T GET THE MONEY BACK. WE'RE
JUST OUT OF POCKET. UM I JUST
WANT TO CIRCLE BACK ON ONE
ISSUE, THOUGH, AS FAR AS
EXEMPTION THAT IT'S NOT. THIS IS
TO THE POINT RIGHT TO MY
QUESTION. IS THAT OKAY? OKAY.
THROUGH THE CHAIR. KNOW THAT,
BUT I WAS JUST I WANTED TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY.
THAT I DIDN'T ASK QUESTIONS. MY
QUESTION THROUGH THE CHAIR AND
THROUGH THE CHILDREN. THE AUTHOR
HAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING
THIS PROPERLY. PLEASE PROCEED.
NEWMAN WILL GIVE THE AUTHOR AN
OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO CLOSE
BUT I HAVEN'T HAD MY TURN YET
NOTHING ELSE AT THIS TIME. I'M
GOOD. OKAY ALL. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. THE QUESTION IS POSED TO
ME WAS ASKING ME TO COMMENT
FIRST. AND THEN MY WITNESS. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO BE
CLEAR SOMEBODY I ACTUALLY
SPECIFICALLY ASKED MR PETTITTE
ALSO COMMENT ON IT. HE DIDN'T HE
DIDN'T JUST VOLUNTEER. OKAY OKAY
, SO I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU
WERE ASKING MR PROFIT TO COME.
NO SIR. MR PETTY. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU,
SIR NEWMAN, JUST A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. FIRST OF
ALL, LET ME JUST SAY WHERE MY
BIASES, AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF
THE YEARS SPENT AS A
TRANSACTIONAL ATTORNEY OR
SOMETHING ELSE. BUT UM, MY
NATURE ON THESE KINDS OF ISSUES
IS TO FALL BACK. UM ON THE
BALANCED AND FREE AND VOLUNTARY
RIGHT TO CONTRACT AND I BELIEVE
THAT CONTRACT LAW IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA BOTH OTHERWISE
OTHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR
STATUTE, GENERALLY SPEAKING
STATUTORY AND FALLING BACK ON
COMMON LAW HAS DONE A PRETTY
GOOD JOB OF GOVERNING. THE
FAIRNESS AND EVEN HANDEDNESS AND
THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, YOU
KNOW, IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT,
SO I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY, I
THINK WHEN WE START ARTIFICIALLY
INTRODUCING IN STATE MANDATED.
UM CONDITIONS ON CONTRACT.
TERMS. INTEGRATION. THEN WE
START RUNNING INTO THESE KINDS
OF CONTROVERSIES. AND I WILL SAY
THAT I'M SAYING THAT TO BOTH
SIDES ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE ONE
OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HAS CAST THE AUTHOR TO
TAKE TO CLARIFY THAT RESPONSE.
IS TO REMOVE A PROVISION IN THE
BILL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MUSIC
TALENT AND RETURNING ADVANCES
FROM THE MUSIC LABEL AS PART OF
A BREAKING THEIR CONTRACT. AS
PART OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT TO
REQUIRE THAT THOSE ADVANCES BE
CREDITED TO THE MUSIC TALENTS
EXISTING ROYALTY ACCOUNT. AGAIN
I FEEL THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY ORDINARY
REMEDIES UNDER CONTRACT LAW,
THERE'S I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S
A REASON. OF THE AUTHORS OF
CERTAIN THERE WASN'T A REASON
SOME YEARS AGO FOR THE SEVEN
YEAR EXEMPTION, PUBLIC POLICY
WISE ON THE USE OF PUBLIC POLICY
REASON TO HAVE THAT PARTICULAR
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL, AND I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS AGREEMENT
IN AGREEMENT TO REMOVE IT. UM MY
QUESTION WHAT I'M HAVING A HARD
TIME UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF
BE UNFOLDING. IF THIS BILL WERE
TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW, THE
UNFOLDING IMPACT. GIVEN THAT WE
JUST HEARD THAT THE
RETROACTIVITY ISN'T AN ISSUE
THAT SEEMS TO ME THE ISSUE IS
GOING FORWARD. DO WE CHASE
BUSINESS FROM THE STATE, MR
BLACKBURN OR OR EITHER OF THE
LEAD WITNESSES WANTS TO ANSWER
MY QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK
YOU. A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT
THAT. IF THIS BILL WERE TO
BECOME LAW IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, SEVEN YEAR EXEMPTION
DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE PER YEAR
PORTRAYAL IN IN YOUR TESTIMONY.
YOUR TESTIMONY. I BELIEVE HE'S
SITTING UP HERE PHRASE THAT.
THIS BILL WILL ELIMINATE THE
ABILITY TO SEEK DAMAGES. HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND ONE
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT
WOULD BE THE ARTISTS WILL NO
LONGER SIGN IN THE STATE. UM,
YOU'RE CO WITNESS INDICATED THAT. VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL THAT YOU SIGN IS AS
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
OR HAS ASSISTANCE OF EFFECTIVE
COUNSEL. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF THIS
BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW? TO THE
LEGAL COUNSEL AND TO THE ARTIST
ABOUT WHY YOU NEED THEM. WHY YOU
NEED THEM TO AGREE. T. FOR THAT
CONTRACT TO BE SUBJECT TO SOME
JURISDICTION OTHER THAN STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WILL YOU
SPECIFICALLY SAY WE NEED YOU TO
SIGN. UNDER A DIFFERENT STATES
JURISDICTION SO THAT YOU CAN'T
SUE FOR DAMAGES OR SO THAT WE
CAN SUPER DAMAGES. EXCUSE ME. WE
DON'T WANT TO SIGN HERE BECAUSE
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GO AFTER
YOU FOR DAMAGES AND JUST TELL ME
HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. IT SEEMS
LIKE IT WILL BE REALLY CLUNKY,
BE REALLY COMPLICATED,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THESE ARE
RELATIONSHIPS AND PEOPLE THAT WE
DEAL WITH CONTINUOUSLY. AS I
SAID PREVIOUSLY, WE ALREADY HAVE
A PRESENCE A SUBSTANTIAL
PRESENCE IN NEW YORK. WE ASKED
FINANCIAL PRESENCE IN NASHVILLE
. WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE
IN FLORIDA, AND OBVIOUSLY WE
HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE
AROUND THE WORLD. BUT WARNER
BROTHERS, RIGHT? SO IF I'M
REPRESENTING RECORDS IF I'M
REPRESENTING THE TALENT AND
QUESTIONED HERE AND YOU TELL ME
I WANT YOU TO SIGN WITH
JURISDICTION IN NASHVILLE IN
TENNESSEE. AND I SAY WHY YOU
SAY, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE CAN'T
GO AFTER YOUR CLIENT FOR DAMAGES
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, AND MY
CLIENT IS THE RISING STAR. AND I
JUST GO TO YOUR COMPETITOR AND
SAY I NEED I NEED ORDINARY
CALIFORNIA REMEDIES IN THIS
CONTRACT. WELL ORDINARY
CALIFORNIA REMEDIES IN THIS
CONTRACT OR DO OR DO I JUST SAY?
UM, I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO
ANYONE ELSE. I'M JUST GOING TO
GO TO NASHVILLE AND SIGN. I
THINK THERE'S TWO ISSUES THERE.
ONE YES, I WARNER BROTHERS WHO
ARE NOW WE'RE KNOWN AS WARNER
RECORDS. WE WANNA RECORDS HAS A
PRESENCE IN NEW YORK AND
SCIENCE, THE SAME SORT OF ACTS
AND ARTISTS. NATIONALS A LITTLE
DIFFERENT, BUT AS FAR AS MY
COMPETITORS ROLE IN THE SAME
BOAT WE'RE ALL IN THIS SITUATION
AND BEING AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED BILL, UM, THAT THAT
WOULD ELIMINATE OUR REMEDY FOR
DAMAGES. BUT THE YOU KNOW, THE
ANSWER HERE IS, IT WOULD BE A
REALLY COMPLICATED DISCUSSION.
VERY CONCRETE, CLUNKY AND
SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK
THROUGH. YEAH. I DON'T SEE IT AS
BEING THAT COMPLICATED. I SEE IT
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW ABSENT THE
70 YEAR EXEMPTION BEING A
DISCUSSION. AROUND. WHAT DO WE
WANT TO FREELY NEGOTIATING THE
CONTRACT? THAT ESSENTIALLY MAKES
BOTH PARTIES HOLE IN THE EVENT
OF A BREACH. DO WE WANT TO
DISCUSS THAT OR NOT? YOU DON'T
DISCUSS THAT. I GO ON TO THE
NEXT PERSON. I GO ONTO THE NEXT
LABEL. I GO INTO THE NEXT LABEL
IF NONE OF THE LABELS IF
EVERYONE IS IN COLLUSION OR NONE
THE LABELS ARE INTERESTED. AND
NEGOTIATING. IT SEEMS TO ME
BASED ON ORDINARY ECONOMIC
PRINCIPLES THAT ANOTHER LABEL
WILL SURFACE WHOSE THAT'S
WILLING OR INTERESTED IN DOING
THOSE KIND OF CONTRACTS, BUT
TELL ME WHERE I'M WRONG. I
HAVEN'T SEEN IT. PLAY OUT. YOU
KNOW, I THINK ARTISTS DON'T SIGN
SOLELY FOR CHOICE OF LAW.
ARTISTS DON'T SIGN ARTISTS DON'T
EVEN THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS.
ARTISTS SIGN. THINK ABOUT THOSE
THINGS RIGHT NOW ARTISTS SIGNED
FOR PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, AND WE
HAVE A VERY A VERY SOPHISTICATED
AND CREDIBLE AND OUR TEAM AND
MARKETING TEAM AND PROMO TEAM
AND PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA AND I
THINK PEOPLE DO DEALS FOR THE
PEOPLE THAT THEY CONNECT WITH.
SO THAT'S WHY I SAY I THINK IT
WOULD BE COMPLICATED BECAUSE YOU
COME INTO THE OFFICE. YOU
PRESENT YOUR MUSIC. AND YOU FALL
IN LOVE WITH THIS GROUP OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO
PARTNER WITH TO HELP CREATE AN
EXPLOIT YOUR PRODUCT, AND THEN I
WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO THE LAWYER
MANAGER AND SAY, HEY, WELL, EVEN
THOUGH YOU LOVE THESE GUYS, WE
HAVE THIS INTERESTING THING
HAPPENED WITH THIS BILL. WE NEED
TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE
IT WORK. THAT'S WHY THEY WILL BE
CLUNKY AND COMPLICATED. ALRIGHT.
WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A
STAB AT RESPONDING TO THAT. MAY
I? I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS. I'M JUST ADDING ON TO
THAT TO THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION.
GO HEAD. FEEL FREE. I THINK I
THINK ONE OF THE RISKS OF WHAT
HAPPENS IN THAT SITUATION IS
THAT ARTIST DOESN'T GET SIGNED.
UM, THE WAY THAT. WE'VE HEARD A
LOT ABOUT FLOPS AND SUCCESSES
AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I MEAN
SIGNING NEW ARTIST IS A LOTTERY
TICKET. AND SO YOU INVEST RECORD
LABELS THE WAY THE ECONOMICS OF
WORKS IS THE RECORD LABELS
INVEST IN A LOT OF LOTTERY
TICKETS, AND SOME OF THEM BECOME
BIG STARS, AND THEY MAKE
MULTIPLE ALBUMS AND GO ON OPTION
AFTER OPTION AND THEN RE SIGNED
NEW DEALS WITH THE SAME LABEL OR
WITH A DIFFERENT LABEL. HOWEVER
IT MAY PLAY OUT AND THE REASON
YOU INVEST IN THOSE MANY ARTISTS
AND YOU PLANT. ALL THOSE SEEDS
IS THAT SOME OF THEM GROW UP AND
MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. AND THE
RISK HERE IS THAT BY TAKING AWAY
THE ABILITY TO GET DAMAGES AND
WHAT YOU DO IS YOU RISK THE
UPSIDE FROM THOSE LOTTERY
TICKETS. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
THE ECONOMICS OF IT IS SIMPLE.
YOU JUST BUY FEWER LOTTERY
TICKETS. YOU DON'T PLANT AS MANY
SEEDS WHEN PLANTING SEEDS IS
COSTLY, AND THE BIG GAIN AT THE
END MIGHT NOT BE THERE. AND SO I
THINK IN THAT SITUATION, YOU
MIGHT GO LABEL TO LABEL AND THEY
SAY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AND IF
YOU'RE OR YOU SAY WHAT WE'LL DO
IT, BUT THE SIGN IN NEW YORK
RIGHT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO SIGN
ANYBODY. THAT WE CAN'T GET
DAMAGES FROM UNDER THE CONTRACT.
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR RESPONSE
IS. ANYWAY MIKE. MY CAUSING IS I
THINK BILL NEEDS WORK. IT NEEDS
WORK, FRANKLY. BESIDES ON THE
LABOR SIDE, WHICH THE SLAVE
LABOR POLICY COMMITTEE AND WE'RE
TRYING TO FOCUS ON UM, ON THE
UNDERLYING LABOR ISSUES. ALL
SIDES IS OBJECTIVELY AS WE CAN.
I THINK THERE'S FRANKLY I THINK
THERE'S ISSUES THAT WERE
TOUCHING UPON. MOST OF THE
ISSUES THAT WERE TOUCHING THE
BOND OR CONTRACTUAL ISSUES THAT
PROBABLY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
IS GOING TO HAVE YOU KNOW A LOT
OF INSIGHT INTO BASED ON THE
LENS THAT THEY LOOK AT THE BILL
THROUGH AND THE DIFFERENT
FRANKLY, THE DIFFERENT COMMITTEE
STAFF THAT THEY HAVE THAT
FOCUSED ON THOSE ISSUES JUST
PURE CONTRACTUAL ISSUES. I'M NOT
CLEAR AT SOME POINT AND PROBABLY
BE. TOLD THAT I'M WRONG 100
TIMES AFTER THIS THAT THAT
ULTIMATELY, THE SEVEN YEAR
EXEMPTION IF IT WERE TO STAY
WON'T BE CHALLENGED UNDER
COMMERCIAL SPEECH. A
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS BECAUSE
IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY SAYING THAT
YOU CANNOT GO AND HAVE
COMMUNICATION. UM WITHOUT
LEADING TO AN ANTICIPATORY
BREACH WITH A WITH ANOTHER
LABEL. YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
AN OTHERWISE LEGAL THING TO DO.
THAT IS, THAT IS THAT IS THE
DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY ME? YES,
WE WOULD. AND WHAT WOULD THAT
LOOK LIKE? IN. I THINK
TECHNICALLY UNDER THE SEVEN YEAR
EXEMPTION NOW. THAT WOULD BE
CHARACTERIZED AS AN ANTICIPATORY
BREACH. AND I THINK WHEN THE
STATE COMES INAND REGULATES THE
ABILITY OF SOMEONE THE VERY
ABILITY T UM. TO ENGAGE IN
COMMERCIAL SPEECH WITH OTHERS
THAT THEY WOULD ORDINARILY BE
ALLOWED TO FREELY CONTRACT WITH
YOU TYPICALLY HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION SO THAT I
THINK IS OUT THERE WHICH MAY END
UP BEING SOMETHING THAT SOLVES
THIS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE
BILL GOES. BUT I JUST THINK THAT
I THINK THE STATUTE IS FRAUGHT
WITH THOSE KIND OF PERILS.
CURRENTLY I THINK I APPLAUD THE
AUTHOR FOR DIVING INTO A VERY
DIFFICULT TOPIC AND TRYING TO
RESOLVE IT. AND I AGREE, YOU
KNOW, PARTICULARLY SENATOR
LETTER IN TERMS OF. A LOT MORE
WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THAT
FRANKLY, THIS COMMITTEE I WOULD
JUST PUT IT BLUNTLY WOULD NOT
HAVE THE CAPACITY AND THE
TIMEFRAME WE WERE. WE WERE GIVEN
TO DEAL WITH TO EVEN MAKE
FURTHER SUGGESTIONS. BUT I WILL
BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL FORWARD. AND IF THERE'S
NOTHING ELSE CAN I JUST ASK ONE
LAST QUESTION? UM UM, MR
CHOLERA. IT IS MY MISFORTUNE.
THAT IF THIS BILL MOVES TO ALL
THREE STOPS ON THE WAY TO THE
FLOOR, AM ON ALL THREE
COMMITTEES HAD SO I WILL BE IN
JUDICIARY OR PROBES. IF THIS
KEEPS MOVING, AND I WOULD JUST
ASK THAT YOU COMMIT TO
PERSONALLY MEET WITH SOME OF THE
PEOPLE THAT TESTIFIED TODAY IN
OPPOSITION SO THAT THAT WHEN WE
GET TO THOSE TWO COMMITTEES,
WE'RE NOT TALKING THROUGH THE
CHAIR. WE KNOW THAT THOSE
CONVERSATIONS HAVE HAD AND THAT
IF YOU GET TWO DIFFERENCES, EACH
OF YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT THE
DIFFERENCES ARE OUT OF YOUR
CONVERSATIONS. ALL RIGHT. SOME
MEMBER COLLAR. IT'S YOUR
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE AND THANK
YOU AND I'M SORRY, BUT YES,
ABSOLUTELY. THE REASON WHY WE
HAVE THESE AMENDMENTS IS BECAUSE
OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO UM,
THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVE
HAPPENED. THEY'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE. TO HAPPEN. UM AND I
AGREE WITH THE CHAIR THAT LOOK,
YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO FOCUS ON
WHAT WE HAVE CONTROL OVER AND
NOT DELVE TOO DEEP INTO THE
WEEDS AND TRY TO MICROMANAGE
CONTRACTS. THAT'S WHY THE FOCUS
REALLY IS ON. THE SEVEN YEAR
EXEMPTION, WHICH EVEN THE
OPPOSITION DIDN'T SPEAK AS MUCH
ABOUT THAT AS MUCH AS THEY DID
ABOUT MAKING SURE THEY CAN GET.
THEY CAN BE MADE WHOLE. AND SO I
THINK IT'S HARD TO JUSTIFY THE
EXISTENCE OF THE EXEMPTION TO
THE SEVEN YEAR STATUTE AND, AS
INDICATED, AGREED WITH THE
AMENDMENTS PUT FORWARD THAT
DELVED INTO HOW THINGS SHOULD BE
PAID OUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE
THROUGH ROYALTY. THIS THAT THOSE
ARE ALSO THINGS I THINK THAT FIT
MORE INTO THE MICRO IN THE WEEDS
OF THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
ARTISTS ARE ALSO MADE WHOLE IN
THE ARRANGEMENT. THE REALITY IS
THAT THIS IS YOU KNOW, THE SOME
OF THE AMENDMENTS HAVE INCLUDED
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ADVANCES
MADE BECAUSE THAT'S THE CLEANEST
WAY TO DO IT. WHAT ARE THE REAL
COSTS ARE THE ADVANCES YOU PUT
FORWARD? UM AND HOW THAT
COMPENSATED BECAUSE THAT'S A
THAT'S A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT
COULD BE VERY EASILY DETERMINED
. AND SO, UH, AS FOR OTHER
CLASSES OR THINGS THAT WE NEED
TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS ON
CERTAINLY, BUT THAT BEING SAID,
YOU KNOW THE SEVEN YEAR
EXEMPTION, I THINK IN ITSELF
HAVING THAT EXEMPTION, I THINK
PUTS OUR ARTISTS AT A SEVERE
DISADVANTAGE AND LOOK AT THE
LABELS ARE GONNA COLLUDING. JUST
SAY WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO SIGN
ANY ARTIST THAT COMES TO US THAT
THEY WANT TO BE IN CALIFORNIA.
YOU KNOW, I SUPPOSE THAT COULD
HAPPEN. I WOULD HOPE THAT
WOULDN'T BE THE CASE. BUT THESE
AREN'T LOTTERY PICKS. THESE ARE
HUMAN BEINGS, THESE ARTISTS AND
THEY ARE HOPING FOR THEIR
OPPORTUNITY. AND THE REALITY IS
, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
CERTAINLY AND OBVIOUSLY RISK
INVOLVED, BUT THIS IS A BILLION
MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY.
THAT HAS THE DESTINY OF THESE
ARTISTS ALREADY IN THEIR PALMS.
AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO LEAD BY FIRST OF ALL. GETTING
RID OF THE SEVEN YEAR EXEMPTIONS
THAT THIS SERVICE CONTRACT
TREATS THE ARTISTS LIKE THEY DO
EVERY OTHER WORKER AND THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AND WE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY, I
THINK, MAKE A BETTER MAKE FOR A
BETTER INDUSTRY. THAT IN PART
THAT EMPOWERS ARTISTS TO BE ABLE
TO HAVE SELF DETERMINATION,
WHICH IS WHATEVER WHERE EVERY
WORKER SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO
AND CERTAINLY COMMIT TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THIS. THANK YOU AND
BRUCE MCPHEE. ASPIRIN. I VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR LARRY, YOU
INDICATED, UM, SUPPORT FOR
MOVING THE BILL ALONG TO THE
NEXT HEARING OF WHICH WILL BE A
PART OF WE COULD ENTERTAIN A
MOTION AT THIS TIME. IF YOU'RE
SO IF YOU SO CHOOSE. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR LEARNED MOVES. THE BILL
WILL GO TO THE CONSULTANT AND
ASKED FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE AT
THIS TIME. FILE ITEM NUMBER
FOUR. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST BUT
FIRST REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON JUDICIARY SENATOR CORTEZ E.
ORTEZ EI SENATOR KOBO GTA,
SENATOR DURAZO. SENATOR LAIRD.
LAYERED I, SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN
NÓI. THAT BILL IS ON CALL AND
CURRENTLY HAS TÔI VOTES. ONE NO
VOTES, ONE. NO. SO WE'LL LEAVE
THE BILL ON CALL. THANK YOU,
EVERYONE. FOR A ROBUST
DISCUSSION AND TOLD THE
WITNESSES ON ALL SIDES FOR BOTH
SIDES, I GUESS. FOR WITH YOUR
EFFORT IN HELPING US GET THROUGH
THAT HEARING. WE ARE NOW GOING.
TO ASSEMBLY BILL 4 37 WHILE WE
HAVE SOME MEMBER CALL APPEAR IF
YOU'RE PREPARED, WE CAN TAKE
THAT UP NOW. OH THANK YOU, UM,
MR CHAIR MEMBERS ESTABLISHED
OVER 100 YEARS AGO AS WE JUST
WE'RE DISCUSSING THE LABOR CODE
SECTIONS 355. COMMON REFERRED TO
THE SEVEN YEAR STATUE HAS A LONG
HISTORY PROTECTING ALL
CALIFORNIANS WERE BEING TRAPPED
IN A LONG TERM POINT CONTRACTS
BY PROHIBITING THESE CONSCIOUS
FROM LASTING NO LONGER THAN
SEVEN YEARS NOW IN THE MOTION
PICTURE INDUSTRY. MANY ACTORS
ARE UNDER EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS
THAT PROHIBIT THEM FROM
PERFORMING OR FINDING WORK. IN
BETWEEN SEASONS, THE ADVENT OF
NEW FORMS OF CONTENT
DISTRIBUTION LIKE STREAMING
SERVICES HAS DRAMATICALLY
CHANGED PRODUCTION SCHEDULES.
ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF
ANNUAL WORK SCHEDULES THAT
INCLUDED CONSISTENT WORK FOR
NINE MONTHS AND ONLY SHORT
BREAKS BETWEEN SEASONS. TODAY
MANY TV AND NEW MEDIA SERIES
SHOOT EPISODES FOR ONLY 45
MONTHS PER SEASON AND LEAVE
ACTORS ON HOLD DURING THE
REMAINDER OF THE YEAR WITHOUT
WORK AND PAY. ACTORS OF LIMITED
WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY TO
PRACTICE THEIR CRAFT AND LIVING
AND SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES
PROHIBITIONS ON THEIR ABILITY TO
WORK BETWEEN TELEVISION SEASONS
LEAVES NO ROOM TO ESTABLISH A
SUSTAINED A CAREER. I'VE HAD A
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE OPPOSITION AND I'VE
DISCUSSED THE MEMBERS THAT MAY
HELP TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS, AND I'M
WILLING TO CONTINUE THESE TALKS
SHOULD THE BILL PASS TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WITH US ON
THE PHONE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
AS MY SUPPORTING WITNESS IS DULY
HILL ACTOR AND MEMBER OF SAG
AFTRA. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO
THE FIRST WITNESS IN ON THE
TELECONFERENCE LINE. IF YOU'RE
PREPARED, YOU MAY BEGIN. DOOLEY
HILL ON THE LINE. OKAY. HIS NAME
IS VISIBLE. YES I AM. ALL RIGHT.
YOU MAY PROCEED. WE CAN HEAR
YOU. YEAH GOOD EVENING. GOOD
AFTERNOON. DEAR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MONEY IN IS DULY HILL.
I'M AN ACTOR, AND I'M HERE TODAY
TO SPEAK ABOUT THE LAW ACT. IT'S
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT HAS POTENTIAL TO AFFECT THE
LIVES OF MILLIONS OF PERFORMING
ARTISTS. AS A CHILD ACTIVE AND I
WAS WELL. I WAS A CHILD ACTOR
AND MY FIRST APPEARANCE IN FRONT
OF A CAMERA WAS WHEN I WAS 10
YEARS OLD WHEN I PERFORMED THE
TAP DANCE MEMBER ON THE JERRY
LEWIS MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
TELETHON IN 1985. THAT SAME YEAR
, I APPEARED ON BROADWAY IN
DETECTING HIS KIDS AND THEN ON
THE NATIONAL TOUR ALONGSIDE THE
ILLUSTRIOUS HAROLD NICHOLAS OF
THE SAME NICHOLAS BROTHERS TAP
DANCING DILDO. ALMOST 10. YEARS
LATER, I MET MY FIRST FEATURE
FILM DEBUT IN A FILM CALLED
SUGAR HILL. IN OUR LATEST ART IN
BRINGING NOISE BRING THE FUNK ON
BROADWAY AND MANY OTHER
TELEVISION FILM AT THE ACTUAL
RULES THAT SEEM TO COME MY WAY,
INCLUDING PLAYING CHARLIE YOUNG
ON THE EMMY WINNING SERIES, THE
WEST WING. A ROLE FOR WHICH I
RECEIVED AN EMMY NOMINATION, AND
CURRENTLY I APPEAR ON THE
NETWORK TELEVISION SERIES THE
WONDER YEARS, AND I'M ALSO A SAG
AFTER BOARD MEMBER I NEED TO BE
ABLE TO GLEAN FROM THIS SNIPPET
OF MY HISTORY THAT I WORK IN
MANY MEDIUMS, AND THANKFULLY, I
WORK OFTEN. AFTER LOOKING
ACTIVE, WHICH I THINK ALL THE
ACTORS CONSIDERED THEMSELVES TO
BE UNLESS THEY PRESENT ULTIMATE
PINNACLE, WHERE ONE FILM A YEAR
WILL DO IT. AS A WORKING ACTOR.
I UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALLY IN
PERSONALLY DISTRESSES THAT ARISE
WHEN YOU WHEN WORK IS
UNAVAILABLE OR WORSE WHEN YOU
ARE MADE UNAVAILABLE FOR WORK.
THIS ISSUE HAS DIRECTLY IMPACTED
MY OWN FAMILY IS IN FACT, IN
EARLY 2018, MY WIFE, ACTRESS
JASMINE ASSIGNMENT, SHE BECAME A
REGULAR CAST MEMBER ON A
STREAMING NETWORK SERIES AND WAS
CONTRACTED AND PAID FOR SEVEN
EPISODES IN THE FIRST SEASON.
THE SEASON ITSELF HAD NOT NINE
EPISODE RUN. AND EVEN THOUGH
FILMING HAD WRAPPED IN DECEMBER
OF 2018 JASMINE WAS
CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO
REMAIN UNEMPLOYED FROM FULL TIME
WORK UNTIL SHE BEGAN FILMING
THIS SECOND SEASON IN JANUARY OF
2021. THAT'S TWO YEARS SHE WAS
ON HOLD, EVEN THOUGH HER WORK
HAS BEEN COMPLETED. PRODUCTION
KEEPING ACTORS IN THIS TYPE OF
CAREER LIMBO IS A RESTRICTION
THAT TIME HAS PASSED. IT WAS
NEVER HEALTHY TO BEGIN WITH.
THAT'S WHY STUDIO CONTRACTS WERE
ENDED DECADES AGO. AND I WAS NOT
AN ERROR. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT
ALL. TODAY'S FANS FOLLOW
PERFORMERS, NOT PRODUCTION. I'M
A SUPERHERO ON ONE PLATFORM AND
A SURGEON ON ANOTHER. IT ONLY
INCREASES AUDIENCE NUMBERS AMONG
MY OR ANYONE ELSE'S FAN BASE. IT
HARMS NO PERSON AND NO
PRODUCTION. THE MOST ACTORS
RIGHT NOW, CONTRACTS ARE ONE WAY
STREET. STUDIOS AND NETWORKS AND
STREAMING PLATFORMS. HOLD ALL OF
THE POWER. THEY CALL ALL THE
SHOTS, AND MOST ARTISTS WE
INCLUDED, ARE STILL UNABLE TO
NEGOTIATE SENSIBLE CONTRACTS
THAT ALLOW US OUR OUR AUTONOMY.
AND OUR FREE AGENCY EVEN AFTER
WE FULFILLED OUR WORK
OBLIGATIONS. SPEAKING AS A
HUSBAND AND A FATHER, WHO ALSO
HAPPENS TO BE AN ACTOR. I WANT
TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I WORK FOR
MYSELF, AND I WORK FOR MY FAMILY
AND LIKE EVERY OTHER WORK IN
CALIFORNIA, WHETHER THEY ARE IN
CONSTRUCTION, OR THEY ARE A
TEACHER. EVERY WORKER IS
ENTITLED TO THE FREEDOM TO WORK.
T ASKING, PLEASE HELP
PERFORMING ARTISTS BREAK FREE
FROM CONTRACTUAL DEMANDS THAT
HAVE LONG OUTLIVED THEIR PURPOSE
. THEY HEARD US. THEY HEARD OUR
FAMILIES AND THEY HEARD OUR
INDUSTRY. PLEASE SUPPORT THE LAW
ACT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY WILL COME
BACK TO COMMITTEE ROOM AND
WELCOME ANY SUPPORT WITNESSES AT
THIS TIME, RIGHT? THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR, EDUARDO MARTINEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION HERE
IS A PROUD CO SPONSOR OF HB 4
37. AS AUTHOR MENTIONED MANY
ACTORS ARE UNDER CONTRACT.
EXCUSE ME. ARE YOU OPERATING AS
A SECOND LEAD WITNESS? WE DIDN'T
HAVE YOU REGISTERED. SORRY. YES.
YES, I WAS. IS THAT OKAY?
PERMIT. YES. YEAH I AM GOING TO
GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. BUT IF BUT
IF WE DO HAVE TO LOOK LIKE WE DO
HAVE TO OPPOSITION WITNESSES. SO
IN TERMS OF FAIRNESS, I WAS JUST
GOING TO SAY I WANT TO OFFER THE
SAME ACCOMMODATION TO THE OTHER
SIDE. IF THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD.
PLEASE. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK
YOU FOR THE INDULGENCE, MR
CHAIR. THE ADVENT OF NEW FORMS
OF CONTENT DISTRIBUTION LIKE
STREAMING SERVICES HAS CHANGED
PRODUCTION SCHEDULES,
ELIMINATING DISABILITY OF ANNUAL
WORK SCHEDULES THAT INCLUDED
CONSISTENT WORK FOR NINE MONTHS
EACH TELEVISION SEASON. TODAY
MANY TV AND NEWS MEDIA SERIES
SHOOT EPISODES OF FOR 3 TO 6
MONTHS PER SEASON AND WITHHOLD
SUBSEQUENT SEASONS FOR AS LONG
AS TWO YEARS. WHEN IN EMPLOYER
DECIDES THAT AN ACTOR MUST
REMAIN EXCLUSIVE TO THEM. THEY
REQUIRE CONTRACT THAT PREVENTS
THE ACTOR FROM WORKING FOR
ANYONE ELSE FOR YEARS AT A TIME.
THIS MEANS REGULAR PERFORMERS ON
A TELEVISION SHOW WHO ARE
COMPENSATED FOR WORK ON EACH
EPISODE ARE NOT ONLY EARNING
LESS MONEY PER SEASON, BUT THERE
ARE ALSO FORCED TO GO WITHOUT
ANY INCOME FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD
OF TIME. SENATORS IMAGINE FOR A
SECOND THAT THESE RESTRICTIVE
CONTRACT PRACTICES APPLIES TO
OTHER APPLIED TO OTHER TYPES OF
WORKERS. IMAGINE CALIFORNIA LAW
THAT RESTRICTED A SERVER FROM
PICKING UP ADDITIONAL SHIFTS AT
ANOTHER RESTAURANT. OR DOMESTIC
WORKER CLEANING MORE THAN ONE
RESIDENCE OR A NURSE BEING
PROHIBITED FROM PROVIDING CARE
AT ANOTHER HOSPITAL THAT SHORT
STAFFED. WE WOULDN'T STAND FOR
THAT. AND WE SUBMIT TO YOU THAT
JUST BECAUSE THESE WORKERS COME
COME FROM A NOSTALGIC CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRY. WE SHOULDN'T TREAT
THESE WORKERS ANY DIFFERENT. WE
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE IN THE ROOM WHO WISHES TO
EXPRESS THE SUPPORT POSITION ON
THIS BILL? MAYBE 4 37? YES MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBER SHANE GAUSMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS AND OUR
MEMBERS IN THE ENTERTAINMENT
INDUSTRY. AND STRONG SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT LAST CALL FOR SUPPORT
WITNESSES FROM THE COMMITTEE
ROOM ITSELF WILL MOVE ON TO THE
TOLL CONFERENCE LINE MODERATOR
ASKING YOU TO PLEASE QUEUE UP
ANY SUPPORT WHEN THIS IS ON A B
4 37 AT THIS TIME. AT THIS TIME
, PLEASE. PRESS 10, YOU
TELEPHONE KEYPAD.WE'LL GO TO
LINE 26 IS GOING AHEAD. THE
CALIFORNIA BIOPSY COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT.
WE HAVE NO OTHER SUPPORT AT THIS
MOMENT. NO OTHERS. MODERATE YOU
SEE, THERE ARE NO OTHER
WITNESSES ON THE LINE IN OTHER
WITNESSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR CLARIFYING THAT I SPOKE OVER
YOU AT THE TIME. WE ARE GOING TO
MOVE NOW TO OPPOSITION WITNESSES
LEAD OPPOSITION ASHLEY HOFFMAN.
AND OR MELISSA. HI. WELCOME
THANK YOU. CHAIR COURT EASY AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS MELISSA ATTACK, AND I AM
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE MOTION
PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND OUR
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY. I
SET FORTH IN OUR MEMO OF
OPPOSITION. WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED A BEFORE 37 FOR SEVERAL
REASONS. FIRST THE BILL BYPASSES
AND CIRCUMVENTS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS MP A MEMBER,
NETFLIX WILL BEGIN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WITH SAG AFTRA NEXT
WEEK. AND THE OTHER MEMBERS
THROUGH THEIR MULTI EMPLOYER
REPRESENTATIVE, THE ALLIANCE OF
MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION
PRODUCERS WILL ENGAGE IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NEXT YEAR.
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS SET A MINIMUM SALARY
EPISODE GUARANTEE THAT THE
PRODUCER MUST SATISFY BEFORE THE
PRODUCER CAN SECURE EXCLUSIVITY
IN AN ACTOR'S EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT. THIS BILL WOULD
OVERRIDE THE CAREFULLY
NEGOTIATED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CONTRACT AND UNDERMINE THE
PARTY'S ABILITY TO COME TO
AGREEMENT IN THE FUTURE. SECOND
ON TOP OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS
SET IN THE CBA ACTORS HAVE
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS
, WHICH PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION
WELL ABOVE THE MINIMUMS AND FOR
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS,
INCLUDING EXCLUSIVITY, AND THOSE
ACTORS ARE WELL REPRESENTED BY
THEIR LAWYERS, AGENTS AND
MANAGERS WHEN THEY NEGOTIATE
THOSE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENTS. BUT THIS BILL WOULD
PROVIDE A UNIFORM RULE FOR
ACTORS AND PROHIBIT AN ACTOR
FROM AGREEING TO EXCLUSIVE
SERVICES EVEN IF THE PRODUCER IS
WILLING TO PAY A VERY GENEROUS
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION. AND I
WOULD ADD THAT EXCLUSIVITY
EXTENDS ONLY TO THE REQUIREMENT
OF BEING IN FIRST PRIORITY ON A
SERIES THE ACTOR IS AVAILABLE
AND ADD TO DO WORK ON FILMS,
COMMERCIALS, VOICEOVERS,
ANIMATION AND LIVE THEATER AND
OTHER KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT.
OPPORTUNITIES THIRD WITHOUT THE
ABILITY TO SECURE THE ACTORS
AVAILABILITY FUTURE SEASONS OF A
TV SERIES MAY BE IN JEOPARDY,
PUTTING AT RISK THE EMPLOYMENT
OF HUNDREDS OF TALENTED AND
SKILLED INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK
BEHIND THE CAMERA. FOURTH
BECAUSE THE BILL DISPLACES
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. IT IS
PREEMPTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AS EXPLAINED IN
THE LEGAL LEGAL MEMO PREPARED BY
MITCHELL SILBERBERG, WHICH WE
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE. THE
MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY AND MOST
OF THE MPS MEMBERS HAVE A MORE
THAN 70 YEAR HISTORY OF ENGAGING
IN ROBUST AND MEANINGFUL
NEGOTIATIONS. WE URGE YOU TO
ALLOW THIS ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED
IN BARGAINING AND NOT TO IMPOSE
THIS ONE SIZE FITS ALL BILL ON
THE PARTIES. FINALLY THE AMOUNT
OF WORK OPPORTUNITIES HAS
EXPLODED IN THE LAST DECADE. IN
2021, THERE WERE MORE THAN 550
SCRIPTED SERIES UP FROM 266 IN
2011. THIS EXPANSION HAS CREATED
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
TALENTED AND CREATIVE
PROFESSIONALS WHO WORK IN THE
SECTOR AND HAS DRIVEN ECONOMIC
GROWTH. 84 37 PUTS ALL OF THIS
AT RISK BY ESSENTIALLY
ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF A
PRODUCER EMPLOYER TO CONTRACT
FOR A WELL COMPENSATED EXCLUSIVE
EMPLOYMENT WITH AN ACTOR. WE
URGE A NO VOTE ON A B 4 37 THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT IN MIND. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. UM,
WE'LL GO TO ASHLEY HOFFMAN AT
THIS TIME. YES GOOD MORNING. MR
INTERIOR MEMBERS ACTUALLY HAPPEN
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION AS STATED
BY THE MOTION PICTURE
ASSOCIATION. THIS BILL
CIRCUMVENTS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS BETWEEN SAG
AFTER US AND THE PRODUCER TO
MAKE TELEVISION. SHOWS AND
MOVIES. THE PARTIES HAVE A
REGULAR THREE YEAR CYCLE TO
NEGOTIATE NEW CONTRACTS. THEY
BARGAINED IN 2020 AND IT STATED
WILL BE BARGAINING AGAIN, WITH
NETFLIX GOING FORWARD EVEN
SOONER. THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD
ALLOW THE PARTIES THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REACH AN
AGREEMENT AND NOT PROPOSE A
RESULT ON THEM. LEGISLATIVE
INTERFERENCE IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IS IMPERMISSIBLE AND
PREEMPTED BY THE NRA. THIS BILL
IS NOT ADDRESSING A MINIMUM
LABOR STANDARDS. RATHER THIS
BILL IS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A
UNIFORM STANDARD THAT CANNOT BE
WAIVED BY THE PARTIES FOR AN
ISSUE THAT IS ADDRESSED AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS WELL AS
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THE ACTORS AND SPECIFIC
PRODUCTIONS. THE BILL IS ALSO
LIKELY TO HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF WASHINGTON, D. C
BASED THINK TANK, THE PHOENIX
CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL AND
ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES ACTUALLY
PUBLISHED A RECENT STUDY ON THIS
BILL. THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT
OF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW, IT
WILL LEAD TO LOWER WAGES AND
EMPLOYMENT FOR ACTORS BECAUSE IT
REDUCES THE VALUE OF THE
CONTRACTS AND IMPACTS
ENFORCEMENT. AND IF THERE ARE
LOWER WAGES AND FEWER EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTORS, THE
NUMBER OF JOBS FOR THE CREW
MEMBERS WHO WORK ON THOSE
PRODUCTIONS WILL ALSO LIKELY
DECLINE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
WORKED HARD TO ENSURE THAT
CALIFORNIA MAINTAINS A ROBUST
MOTION PICTURE. AND TELEVISION
PRODUCTION BUSINESS, PROVIDING
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WELL PAYING
JOBS IN CALIFORNIA AND, IN FACT,
SAG AFTER HIS OWN NATIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORTED THAT
THEIR MEMBERS HAD RECORD
BREAKING EARNINGS IN 2021. THIS
COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT UNDERMINE
THE SUCCESSFUL GROWTH OF THIS
INDUSTRY. WE URGE YOU NOT TO SET
A BARRIER TO THAT GROWTH BY
PROHIBITING EXCLUSIVITY IN THESE
CONTRACTS. WE URGE UNOVA. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM
USES TO EXPRESS IN A POST
POSITION. MAYBE 4 37. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MIKE ROBSON ON BEHALF
OF WHAT DISNEY COMPANY AND ITS
AFFILIATED STUDIOS AND
OPPOSITION. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
TRACEY STEPHENS ON BEHALF OF
NETFLIX, ALSO IN OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS ERIN IMOLA,
REPRESENTING SONY PICTURES, ALSO
IN OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU
NO ONE ELSE COME FORWARD,
MODERATOR. WOULD YOU PLEASE
QUEUE UP ANY OPPOSITION
WITNESSES ON A B 4 37 ON THE
TELECONFERENCE LINE AT THIS
TIME. THERE ANY OPPOSITION AT
THIS TIME, PLEASE PRESS ONE AND
DRAWING YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
WE DO A TOP OF QUEUING UP ONE
MOMENT. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 1 62, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. BACK LINE. ROMERO ON
BEHALF OF THE LOSANGELES AREA,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. AND WE'LL GO THEN TO
1 75, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT
CHOICE ON BEHALF OF NBC,
UNIVERSAL AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE NO FURTHER
OPPOSITION ON THE PHONE LINE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MODERATOR
WILL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
AT THIS TIME, SENATOR NEWMAN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. SO, MR CORA
BUT THIS IS WAS ORIGINALLY. PART
OF THE SAME BILL THAT WAS SPLIT
RIGHT FROM MUSIC VERSUS THE
MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY. AND AS
I UNDERSTAND IT KIND OF THE CRUX
OF THIS ISSUE IS THE ISSUE OF
THIS BILL IS THE ISSUE OF
EXCLUSIVITY VERSUS THE OTHER,
WHICH WAS NOTION OF LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES IS RELATED TO
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, BUT I
DO WORRY ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE
INSERTING ITSELF. IN A WAY THAT
MIGHT PRE EMPT AND ONGOING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
NEGOTIATION, AND I'M INTERESTED
IN THE ASSERTION THAT THIS BILL
WOULD BE PREEMPTED BY THE NRA.
SO HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD
THING. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS
GOING TO GO TO JUDICIARY. SO YOU
KNOW MY CONDOLENCES TO CENTRAL
LAIRD. I DON'T SIT ON JUDICIARY.
THEN I ASSUME THAT QUESTION WILL
BE ANSWERED MORE DEFINITIVELY
THERE. BUT IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO
IT HERE WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT TO BE THE CASE. AND MR
SHERIFF, I COULD CHANGE GASTON'S
HERE FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. IF
I MAY. THAT WOULDBE FINE. THANK
YOU. HOLD ON A SECOND. WE'RE NOT
GETTING THE MICROPHONE PICKUP
YET TO ANSWER SHANE GUSSMAN ON
BEHALF OF SAG AFTRA IN A
SENTENCE. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION
. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. IT HAS
BEEN THE SUBJECT FOR SAG AFTRA
IN TERMS OF RAISING IT FOR THREE
SUCCESSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT. THE ANSWER HAS BEEN.
NO, NO, NO, NO. UM IN FACT, IN
THE FALL, WE HAD A MEETING, AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INDUSTRY
SAID THEY WOULD NEVER AGREE TO
THIS IN WRITING. SO WE ARE LEFT
TO COME TO THE LEGISLATURE TO
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. IN TERMS OF
PREEMPTION. WE DO SEE THIS AS A
AS A MINIMUM STANDARD OF WORK.
YOU HAVE LABOR CODE SECTION. I
BELIEVE IT'S 96 OR 98 THAT
ALLOWS EMPLOYEES TO DO WHATEVER
THEY WANT ON THEIR OFF TIME FROM
AWAY FROM THEIR PRIMARY
EMPLOYMENT AS LONG AS IT'S
LEGAL. AND WE SEE THIS AS A SORT
OF OUTCROPPING OF THAT IDEA THAT
ALLOWS OTHER WORKERS TO GO OUT
AND PERFORM OTHER WORK. I WOULD
SAY IN TERMS OF WORKING
CONDITIONS IF YOU LOOK THROUGH
THE LABOR CODE THERE ARE
LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF SECTIONS
THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF
CONTRACTING BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE. PROTESTANT SECTIONS
ARE PRESENTED BY ALRIGHT. TÌM,
INCLUDING BREAKS, NO PERIOD.
THAT'S UM, A LITTLE EXPENSIVE.
LET ME FOR YOU HERE SO BAD,
UNDERSTAND? ISSUE DECISION LAST
ROUNDS OF NEGOTIATIONS. THIS IS
THE ON THE TABLE MATTER OF YOUR
ISSUES, WHILE BECAUSE OF THIS
BILL AT THE EMPLOYER'S PLAYERS
HAVE, INTERESTINGLY, ISN'T IT?
UM I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT GOES,
NORMALLY GO BY FASTER STREET
WATCHES FIXED ON AND THE
STATEMENTS CHEMISTRY. I MEAN,
WHY WE SECOND SOLVE THESE
PROBLEMS THAT EITHER PARTY SAID
200 ROUNDS COULD IF YOU MISSED
THAT COULD RESPOND. BUT WHEN YOU
DO. THANK YOU. HAPPY TO RESPOND.
UM YES, THIS WAS RAISED IN 2020
AND THE NEGOTIATION. SECONDLY
BRING A PROPOSAL TO THE NPT P
THANKS BEING MADE A
COUNTERPROPOSAL. BUT THAT'S
HAPPENED. WITHDREW THE PROPOSAL
. UH DIDN'T WANT TO BOTHER
PRIORITIES AND LET ME JUST TALK
IN 2017 IMPROVED THIS MAZE. MY
UNDERSTANDING. I DON'T DO THAT
CREATIONS ARE SISTER TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THERE WERE IMPROVEMENTS
MADE. ON THE EXCLUSIVITY
PROVISION. LET ME JUST TELL YOU
WHAT IT SAYS IT SETS A MINIMUM
PAY AMOUNT THAT THE ACTOR MUST
RECEIVE IN THE CASE OF A ONE
HOUR SERIES AT MINIMUM PER
EPISODIC FEE IS $20,000 IN THE
ACTOR HAS TO BE GUARANTEED.
SEVEN EPISODES IN THE NET.
NETFLIX CONTRACT IS A LITTLE BIT
MORE GENEROUS IN TERMS OF THE
COMPENSATION. UM AND LET ME SO.
SO AGAIN, THE HTTP GAVE A
COUNTER OFFER AND SAG, THEN WITH
WITHDREW T ON FROM DISCUSSIONS
AND THEY WENT ON TO OTHER
PRIORITIES AND REACHED AN
AGREEMENT. SO THAT'S THE STATUS
OF PAST HISTORY. LET ME JUST
GIVE YOU AN ILLUSTRATION IS A
LITTLE UM IS IT'S AN
ILLUSTRATION. SO THE W G A
WRITERS GUILD CONTRACT ALSO HAS
AN EXCLUSIVITY PROVISION. THEY
SOUGHT A BETTER BETTER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS ON THIS PROVISION IN
THEIR LAST CONTRACT, AND THEY
WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE A MINIMUM
SALARY OF 325,000. DOLLARS FOR
WRITING ONE WRITING SEASON
PRODUCTION PERIODS AND THAT WAS
WAS DESCRIBED TO ME AS A 60%
INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR CONTRACT
. SO WE THE COMPANIES DO HAVE A
HISTORY OF MAKING IMPROVEMENTS
ON IN THIS PROVISION. AH I CAN'T
PREDICT WHAT YOU KNOW WHAT MIGHT
HAPPEN. THAT'S AS I SAID, NOT
NOT WHAT I DO, BUT THERE IS A
PAST PRACTICE IN THE HISTORY. OF
MAKING IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS
SPECIFIC, UM, PART OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
I APPRECIATE THAT SO AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, YOU KNOW, AND
AGAIN MAKING DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THIS BILL AND THE LAST BILL. UM,
ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES HERE IS
THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL
THE OTHER FOLKS WHO WORK IN
PRODUCTION IN SORT OF MANAGING
RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONSCREEN
TALENT. AND THE ASSERTION PAST
CONVERSATIONS. THE ASSERTION WAS
MADE THAT, UM PRODUCTION
COMPANIES DO GRANT REQUESTS, UH
, KIND OF OUTSIDE THE CONTRACT
FOR WORKING BETWEEN SHOOTING
SOME VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE. LIKE
98% OF THE TIME. IS THAT TRUE?
YES SO WE WHEN THE BILL WAS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED LAST YEAR
IN 2021 13 85 WE SURVEYED THE
MEMBERS TO ON THIS ISSUE ABOUT
EXCLUSIVITY AND ARE THERE OTHER
WORK OPPORTUNITIES ARE ACTORS
ARE THEY ACCOMMODATED IN THEIR
IN THEIR WORK SCHEDULES? AND YES
, WE FOUND THAT IN 95 TO 97% OF
THE TIME WHEN AN ACTOR PRESENTS
ANOTHER WORK OPPORTUNITY. THAT
SCHEDULE IS ACCOMMODATED. OUR
STUDIOS HAVE BUSINESS AFFAIRS
ATTORNEYS WHO NEGOTIATE THE
CONTRACTS IN THE FIRST PLACE
WITH THE ACTORS, BUT THEN SPENT
A GOOD PART OF THEIR DAY
ACCOMMODATING, YOU KNOW, TAKING
REQUESTS, TAKING INFORMATION AND
ACCOMMODATING ACTORS AND TALKING
WITH THEIR COLLEAGUES AT
COMPETITIVE STUDIOS. TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY CAN SQUARE AWAY
SCHEDULING ISSUES SO THAT, UM,
THAT ACTORS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED
. IT'S IN, UM, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR
TO THE PREVIOUS BILL WHERE OUR
STUDIOS WANT TO HAVE GOOD
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE ACTORS
WORKING ON A PARTICULAR PROJECT
. THERE'S ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S
GOING TO COME UP IN THE FUTURE,
AND YOU ALWAYS WANT TO HAVE ON A
GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE WITH THE PERFORMERS WHO ARE
WORKING ON YOUR SHOW, SO THERE'S
EVERY EFFORT IS MADE TO
ACCOMMODATE THOSE SCHEDULES, SO
THAT IF IT'S TRUE THAT THOSE
EFFORTS ARE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE
FOR THE MOST PART, THEY WORK
OUT. WHY NOT EXCEED TWO? THIS AT
LEAST THAT PROVISION WHY NOT?
WHY NOT EXCEED TWO? SOME AMENDED
LANGUAGE THAT INCLUDES AN
ALLOWANCE FOR WORK TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT
THAT THE NATURE OF PRODUCTION
YOU KNOW IT HAS AND DISTRIBUTION
HAS CHANGED RIGHT IN THE OLD
DAYS, YET 26 STEPS AS A YEAR.
NOW IT'S SERIOUS CAN BE VERY
SHORT, VERY COMPRESSED. AND SO
CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY COST IF SOMEBODY HAS
TO WAIT TO YOU KNOW, FINISH THE
NINTH OF THE NINTH EPISODES,
JUST AS OPPOSED TO THE OLD MODEL
. SO IS THERE IS THERE AN
AMENDED VERSION OF THIS EITHER
FOR THIS BILL, OR THAT YOU COULD
ACHIEVE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS
WITH SAG IN THE NEXTROUND THE
LADDER RIGHT, SO THAT'S THE
PLACE TO REACH THAT AGREEMENT
AND THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS AT THE
BARGAINING TABLE. AND OUR
COMPANIES, UM, REALLY BELIEVE
THAT THAT IS THE FORUM FOR THIS
DISCUSSION AND THE PARTICULARS
OF IT RATHER THAN ONE SIZE FITS
ALL IN A BROAD, LET BROAD PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD YOU
KNOW, WOULD AFFECT EVERYBODY. UM
I APPRECIATE THAT. TURN IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. RIGHT, SENATOR LEWIS.
THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS, SENATOR
ALERT. UM SORRY. I DIDN'T GET
GET ALL OF THE CONVERSATION AND
THE PRESENTATION. THINK I'M AT
THE TAIL END OF THIS, SO I JUST
WANT TO APPRECIATE THE BOTH THE
PROPONENTS AND THE OPPOSITION
FOR THIS BECAUSE IT CAN BE IT
CAN BECOME VERY COMPLICATED, UM,
WITH DIFFERENT LAYERS. UM ON THE
OTHER HAND, THIS IS THE LABOR
COMMITTEE SO TRYING TO LOOK AT
IT THROUGH THE LENS OF THE LABOR
COMMITTEE. AND JUST IN TERMS OF
WHAT? UM MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
NEWMAN ASKED RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS
THERE'S GOTTA BE A WAY OF
ADDRESSING SOMETHING THAT THE
OPPOSITION SAYS IS ALREADY THE
PRACTICE. UM AND TO ME, IT'S A
QUESTION OF AFTER ALL OF THIS
BACK AND FORTH. THE QUESTION OF
THE ABILITY TO WORK. THE ABILITY
TO WORK ANOTHER JOB. AND.
EVERYBODY I KNOW HAS THE ABILITY
TO DO THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY
TO WORK IN ANOTHER JOB, A SECOND
JOB, SOMETIMES A THIRD JOB. IT'S
WHAT HELPS US GET THROUGH.
SOMETIMES SOME DIFFICULT TIMES.
THAT'S WHAT HELPS US. YET, UM UM
HIGHER AND THE MOBILITY OF BEING
ABLE TO GET TO HAVE A SECOND JOB
, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WHAT
FOR ME LOOKING AT THROUGH THE
EYES OF I THINK A WORKING MANNER
ARE PERSON WOMAN IS YOU'VE GOT
TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT YOU'VE
GOT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO WORK. OTHER WORK
OTHER JOB TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
YOURSELF. GET THROUGH WHAT YOU
NEED TO GET THROUGH. SO, UM WITH
THAT I FIND MYSELF SUPPORTING
THE BILL. AND HOPEFULLY. THERE'S
OTHER WAYS LIKE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING THAT CAN CONTINUE TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE. CENTER WHERE
HE THIS IS, I THINK VERY
DISTINCT FROM THE PREVIOUS FILM,
AND YET WE LOOK AT THEM TOGETHER
BECAUSE THEY WERE BOTH IN ONE
BILL AT ONE POINT AND SPLIT
APART OR CONSIDERING THEM BACK
TO BACK ON THE SAME DAY, BUT
THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT, AND I
THINK THAT CONFLICT HERE IS.
WERE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE
BECAUSE I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE
STATEMENT, WHICH JUST MADE THE
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES ABOUT BEING
ABLE TO WORK. MULTIPLE JOBS.
QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE PROCESS
TO GET? IN HIS THE PROCESS TO
STATE PUT EXCUSE ME STATE,
PUTTING ITS THUMB ON THE SCALES
. I'M SORRY YOU MISSED THE
PREVIOUS DEBATE OR A LOT OF
THUMBS ISN'T THE PREVIOUS
DEBATE. OR WHETHER ALLOWING IT
TO PROCEED THROUGH THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS
AND THE. THE INTERESTING THING
IS, AS WAS SAID THIS WILL
PROCEED ON THE SAME PATH OF
THREE COMMITTEES. AND IF THERE
IS SUPPORT FOR THIS, EVEN IF IT
DOESN'T MAKE IT ALL THE WAY THAT
MIGHT PUT THE THUMB ON THE NEXT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
OR SOMEBODY'S GOING TO. ENTER
THE PLAYING FIELD. AND SO MY
INCLINATION IS TO ONCE AGAIN
MOVED THE BILL ALONG, BUT I
THINK THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THERE ARE ANY CONVERSATIONS.
ABOUT HOW TO DO THIS IN A WAY
THAT I MEAN IT MIGHT EVEN MAKE
SENSE TO ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLE
AND THEN ALLOWED TO BE
COLLECTIVE. WE BARGAINED SO THAT
HOW IT'S APPLIED. IS REALLY
SUBJECT TO THE BARGAINING
PROCESS OF NOT ONE SIZE FITS
ALL. BUT WE ARE SAYING THAT WE
WANT THIS ISSUE ADDRESSED, AT
LEAST AT WHAT THE END OF IT IS,
AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S
POSSIBLE. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THAT THE GOOD ABOUT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS YOU
REALLY ALLOWING THE WORKERS TO
NEGOTIATE FOR THEMSELVES ON HOW
BEST WORKS ON THE GROUND AND.
AND MAKING SURE THERE IS BUYING
FROM MANAGEMENT. SO WITH THAT
I'LL BE WANT TO MOVE IT ALONG.
BUT THE CONVERSATION THAT MIGHT
EXIST BETWEEN NOW AND JUDICIARY
OR NOW IN APPROPRIATIONS. IS HOW
TO MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS IN A WAY
THAT IT ACTUALLY WORKS FOR
EVERYBODY. MEN THAT SOUNDS AN
AWFUL LOT LIKE COLLECTIVE
PROCESS, BUT IT'S LIKE, YOU
KNOW, SO THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU. LET ME JUST SAY THAT
I THINK AND WE'VE SEEN IN THIS
COMMITTEE MOST RECENTLY, UM,
MULTIPLE EXAMPLES, AND I DON'T
MEAN JUST TODAY OF WHERE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS, I
THINK, FOR MOST OF US UP HERE,
MUCH BETTER TOOL TO USE TO
REALLY TAKE A SURGICAL APPROACH
, IF YOU WILL, TO ISSUES THAT
HAVE EITHER A LITTLE COMPLEXITY
OR FUNDAMENTALLY JUST NEED TO
HAVE THE KIND OF BARGAINING
TENSION. ACROSS THE TABLE. THAT
YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY RESULTS. AS
HE SAID IN A LITTLE PAIN ON BOTH
SIDES, BUT AN OUTCOME THAT'S
PERHAPS MORE MORE PRESCRIPTIVE
AND MORE APPROPRIATE THAN YOU
KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO? IN A REALLY
, WHAT ARE THE FEW WORDS IN A
BILL THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US TO
TRY TO CRAFT LANGUAGE THAT SAID
, YOU KNOW THE CHALLENGE IN
TRYING TO DIRECT THAT TO HAPPEN?
OF COURSE. THE CHALLENGES ARE
MULTIPLE. EVEN IT'S ALMOST
EASIER WHEN THERE'S NO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
AT ALL TO JUST SAY. YOU KNOW, TO
THE EXTENT OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT
SUBSEQUENTLY SUPERSEDES THIS
OCCUPIES THE SPACE. THEN THE
STATUTE GOES AWAY. BUT HERE,
SOMEONE PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO
COME TO SOME AGREEMENT. I THINK.
IN TERMS OF A PERSPECTIVE
AMENDMENT THAT NARROWLY DEFINES
THE ISSUE THAT WOULD BE UM, ON
THE TABLE AND THEN BE INCLUDED
IN A FULLY EXECUTED COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT. AS A AS A
AS A WAY TO ESSENTIALLY SUNSET,
ANY OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY.
I LIKE THAT. BUT AGAIN AS. WE
HAVE A SMALL BUT MIGHTY TEAM
HERE AND THEY DO TERRIFIC WORK.
AND I THINK THAT WE DIVE INTO
THESE BILLS. AS MUCH AS WE
POSSIBLY CAN. BUT THOSE KIND OF
ISSUES ARE THE WORK. I THINK
THAT THE AUTHOR AND IN THE
SPONSORS AND THE OPPOSITION NEED
TO KIND OF GRIPS WITH OTHERWISE,
AT SOME POINT, WHETHER IT'S THIS
BILL OR A SUBSEQUENT BILL. I DO
THINK THE LEGISLATURE GETS TIRED
OF THREE YEAR CYCLE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING CYCLE WHERE FOLKS
COME BACK AND SAY WE JUST
COULDN'T AGREE. WE JUST COULDN'T
AGREE. WE JUST COULDN'T AGREE
THAT THERE MAY BE PLENTY OF
BLAME TO GO AROUND, BUT IT'S
STILL IT IS WHAT IT IS, AS THEY
SAY SO, WITH THAT I'M GOING TO
BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL FORWARD. BUT I DIDN'T
WANT TO. MAKE THOSE COMMENTS ON
THE RECORD AND ENCOURAGE FOLKS
TO LISTEN TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF THE
POTENTIAL FOR THAT KIND OF A
RESOLUTION. THANK YOU AND YOUR
YOU MAY MAKE ONE. YES SIR. SORRY
I'M SORRY. I SPOKE FIRST. I
WANTED TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES.
IT'S SO IT'S SO I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE AND KIND OF ALIGNED
MINE. MY COMMENTS WITH SENATOR
LARRY AND SENATOR COURTESY IS
GOING TO REAFFIRM THAT, UM MY
STRONG PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT
THIS BE HANDLED. EXT EXPLICITLY
DISCREETLY WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS. AND AGAIN. I
WORRY THAT WE'VE ENSURED
OURSELVES IN A WAY THAT MAY NOT
BE SO HELPFUL, AND I DO TAKE
SERIOUSLY THE ASSERTION THAT
THIS MAY BE PREEMPTED BY THE NRA
, SO THAT ISSUE WILL BE SETTLED.
I THINK WITH SOME LEVEL OF
DEFINITION AND JUDICIARY. UM AND
SO I GUESS I STILL HAVE
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE BILL. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT IT TODAY AND
MAKE CLEAR THAT I MAY NOT BE
DIFFERENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE
FLOOR. BUT I WOULD URGE BOTH
PARTIES AND I'LL ALSO COMMEND
BOTH PARTIES FOR BEING YOU KNOW,
SUPER THOROUGH IN THEIR IN THEIR
ADVOCACY. UP TO NOW BEEN WAYS
THAT WE DON'T SEE QUITE OFTEN
AND PROVES JUST HOW FUNDAMENTAL
THIS IS, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
BOTH SIDES, AND SO I'D URGE THE
AUTHOR TO CONTINUE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WITH AN EYE ON
IDEALLY SETTLING THIS ISSUE AND
RETURNING IT TO THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS WHERE I
BELIEVE IT PROBABLY BELONGS. SO
THANK YOU SOMETHING, SENATOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW?
HAVING BEEN IN THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WORLD OF THE LABOR
MOVEMENT, ALSO HAVING BEEN AN
ADVOCATE FOR LEGISLATION. THERE
IS A PLACE FOR BOTH. THERE'S A
PLACE FOR BOTH. AND IT'S NOT ONE
OR THE OTHER. THERE'S A PLACE
FOR BOTH. JUST YESTERDAY IN L, A
CITY COUNCIL. THERE WAS AN
ORDINANCE PASSED TO ADDRESS. UM
THE WORKLOAD THAT HOUSEKEEPERS
HAVE IN HOTELS. NO. BEST PLACE
FOR THAT. YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE
WOULD SAY. COLECTIVE
BARGAINING. BUT IF IT'S NOT
GETTING DONE IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, THEN WORKING PEOPLE
COME TO US. THEY COME TO
GOVERNMENT, THEY SAY, HELP US.
HELP US FIX THIS. THIS IS A
PROBLEM. AND IF YOU CAN'T WORK A
SECOND JOB STAND. YOU KNOW, AND
IT DOESN'T GET DONE AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THEN THEY
COME TO US, SO I REALLY NOT. I
DON'T WANT I DON'T. I DON'T FEEL
LIKE IT'S IF THERE'S A
COLLECTIVE BARGAIN PROCESS, THEN
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO ADDRESS
IT. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY HAS
GOVERNMENT TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE
PICTURE. AND SO I REALLY I
REALLY LIKE THAT. WE'RE HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT'S
RARELY HAPPENS HERE. BUT AT
ANOTHER POINT IN TIME, MAYBE WE
CAN HAVE A DEEPER CONVERSATION
AS TO WHAT EXACTLY HAVING ANY
MORE DEEPER COME ON NEXT WEEK
NEXT WEEK, ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED
TO ADD THAT, UM, YOU KNOW TO THE
COMMENTS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
. THANK YOU, SENATOR AS OH, I
THINK WE'RE GENERALLY FOLKS ARE
SAYING THE SAME THING BOTH AND
WITHOUT THE COMMITTEE TRYING TO
CRAFT THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
INCENTIVIZE IF YOU WILL THAT
KIND OF A SOLUTION, BECAUSE WHAT
I HEAR IS THAT WE'RE MOVING THE
BILL FORWARD AT THIS TIME TO
JUDICIARY. AS IT'S IN PRINT
CURRENTLY, SO WITH THAT. YOU
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU. MR I LINE MY COMMENTS
WITH SENATOR D. ROSS SO I THINK
SHE'S SPOT ON AND I REALLY WANT
TO THANK THE CHAIR AS WELL AS
YOUR COUNTERPART IN THE
ASSEMBLY. WE OFTENTIMES SEE AND
PASSED LEGISLATION ROUTINELY
THAT COULD OTHERWISE BE DEEMED
TO BE PART OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS. BUT WE DO IT
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME
FUNDAMENTAL WE BELIEVE WE HAVE
SOME FUNDAMENTAL BASELINES
WHETHER IT'S WORKERS. HEALTH AND
SAFETY WORKERS RIGHTS, WHETHER
ITS INDEPENDENCE OF WORKER AND
SO THIS IS REALLY JUST ABOUT
RESTORING THE ABILITY TO FREELY
WORK. BY REMOVING THOSE THOSE
RESTRICTIONS AND ENABLING ACTORS
IN CALIFORNIA THE FREEDOM TO
WORK IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS AS
LONG AS THERE'S NO MATERIAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SO THEY
CAN'T YOU KNOW, WE WORK FOR THE
VOICE PRODUCTION ENDS. THEY GO
JUMP OVER AMERICAN IDOL. THERE
COULD BE SOME MATERIAL CONFLICT
THERE. AND ALSO IT AFFIRMATIVELY
STATES THAT THE ARTISTS MAY WORK
FOR MULTI EMPLOYEES THAT THERE
IS NO SCHEDULING CONFLICT. I
UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE THAT
LANGUAGE CAN BE WORKED OUT A
LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT YOU KNOW,
LOOK IF A PRODUCTION GOES DARK
AS STATED PRODUCTIONS THAT TAKE
A LOT OF PEOPLE PRODUCTION GOES
DARK. IT DOESN'T JUMP UP AGAIN
IN A WEEK OR TWO. SOME OF THESE
PRODUCTIONS ARE DONE IN FOUR OR
FIVE MONTHS FOR THE YEAR, AND I
THINK THERE'S THERE IS A LOT OF
ROOM THERE FOR US TO MOVE IN
INTO THE CHAIR'S POINT, THERE
CAN ALWAYS BE EXEMPTIONS FOR
AGREED UPON CBS TO THIS
BASELINE, FOUNDATIONAL.
LEGISLATION IF IT'S ALREADY
THEIR PRACTICES WE HEARD FROM
THE INDUSTRY AND CODIFYING THE
BASIC TENANTS OF THEIR FREEDOM
TO WORK SHOULD BE FOUNDATIONAL.
AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS
CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S BEEN
A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION. AND
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO
CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER WITH
THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE A
MOTION? COME ON. LET'S MOVE BY
SENATOR DURAZO, LAST CONSULTANT
. CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
THREE. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST
BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY SENATOR
CORTEZ E Z. I, SENATOR KOA
BOGUE. SENATOR DURAZO DRAWS OI,
SENATOR LAIRD. LAYERED I,
SENATOR NEWMAN. AYE. MM. OKAY?
I'VE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT
SENATOR COBURG WILL BE ABSENT
TODAY. SO WHAT WAS THE PLEASE
GIVE ME THE VOLCANIC ANIMAL.
ANNOUNCED THE BILL. THE BILL IS
OUT FOR ZERO. ALRIGHT THE BILL
IS OUT ON A 4 TO 0 VOTE. THANK
YOU. WE'RE JUMPING AROUND A
LITTLE BIT TODAY. THAT WAS 4 37
. THAT WAS FAR ITEM THREE. I
BELIEVE IF MY LIST IS CORRECT WE
HAVE. FOLLOWING TWO WOULD BE
NEXT CORRECT. OKAY THANK YOU.
AND THIS IS A B 16 67. AUTHOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COOPER. PLEASE
PROCEED IF YOU'RE PREPARED.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
EXISTING LAW REQUIRES SCHOOL AND
COMMUNITY COLLEGE EMPLOYEES.
EMPLOYERS TO CORRECTLY REPORT
PENSION ELIGIBLE COMPENSATION TO
CASTRES. FORTUNATELY AT TIMES
INCORRECT INFORMATION REPORTED
TO CAL STORES. FURTHERMORE
EMPLOYERS ARE NOT ALWAYS GIVEN
THE CORRECT INFORMATION. BY CAL
STARS ON WHAT IS REPORTABLE THIS
LED TO RETIRE BENEFITS BEING
MODIFIED AFTER RETIREMENT
SOMETIMES YEARS LATER. IN SOME
CASES, RETIREE FORCED TO PAY
BACK THE OVERPAID AMOUNT AND
SUFFER PERMANENT REDUCTION IN
FUTURE RETIREMENT PAYMENTS.
UNEXPECTED PENSIONS CUTS GO BACK
ON PROMISES MADE TO RETIREES
DURING THEIR LIVES IN FINANCIAL
TURMOIL. A B 16 67 6 TO PROTECT
THE PROMISED BENEFITS BY
ESTABLISHING A PROCESS. WHICH
ENSURES A RETIRED TEACHER IS NOT
HELD LIABLE FOR PRIOR
OVERPAYMENTS EXCEPT IN CASES OF
MEMBER AIR. LET'S THINK
CALIFORNIA RETIRED TEACHERS,
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS SCUSE ME.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS, ALFRED CAN
I SUPERINTENDENTS EDUCATIONAL
SERVICE ASSOCIATIONS, CANISTERS
THAT CONTINUED COLLABORATION TO
MAKE THIS BILL WORK. WITH ME
TODAY IS DONALD HAUSER, A MEMBER
OF THE CALIFORNIA RETIRED
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION IN GEORGIA
. MORE RETIRED TEACHER REMEMBER
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
OKAY, WE'LL GO TO THE FIRST
LEADS FOR WITNESS AT THIS TIME.
WELCOME THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. SENATORS MY NAME
IS GEORGIA. MORE AND I'M URGING
YOU TO SUPPORT TODAY FOR A B. 16
67 TO IMPROVE THE RETIREMENT
SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA'S CAREER
EDUCATORS. I STARTED TEACHING IN
1977 AT GREEN VALLEY SCHOOL IN
DANVILLE. WHICH HAPPENS TO BE
THE SAME SCHOOL THAT I ATTENDED
K THROUGH SIX. I TAUGHT FIRST
THROUGH THIRD GRADES THERE. I
RETIRED IN 2012. AFTER 35 YEARS.
IN THE CLASSROOM, HELPING
CHILDREN THRIVE. I RECEIVED A
LETTER IN NOVEMBER OF 2020,
EXPLAINING THAT I HAD TO PAY
BACK $9000 BECAUSE OF AN EIGHT
YEAR OLD AIR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
HAD MADE. IN REPORTING MY
RETIREMENT INFORMATION TO
CASTRES. PAYING BACK THE $9000.
OF OVERPAYMENTS FOR AN ERROR. I
KNEW NOTHING ABOUT COSMO OR
MENTAL ANGUISH THAN ANYTHING
ELSE. THIS WAS DURING THE
BEGINNING OF COVID. AND ALSO THE
WINTER HOLIDAYS. YOU CAN IMAGINE
THAT THIS WAS A VERY EMOTIONAL
TIME FOR ME. IT IS MY HOPE. THAT
THIS SITUATION WILL NEVER HAPPEN
TO FUTURE RETIREES. ARE RETIRED
MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE HELD.
LIABLE FOR PRIOR OVERPAYMENTS
WHEN THIS OCCURS. AT SOME 0.1
MUST POINT OUT THAT THIS IS
EXTREMELY UNFAIR. THE CURRENT
SYSTEM IS UNFAIR. IF THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT REPORTS THE WRONG
INFORMATION TO CAL STIRS THE
TEACHER PAYS FOR IT. IF THE
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
REPORTS THE WRONG INFORMATION.
FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHER
PAYS FOR IT. FORECASTERS TELLS
THE DISTRICT BAD INFORMATION
ABOUT HOW TO REPORT SERVICE
CREDIT THE TEACHER PAYS FOR IT.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE LAW
RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO
CHANGE IT IS WRONG AND WE NEED
TO STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY. LET'S
RIGHT THE WRONG. I URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT A B 16 67 AND I THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COOPER FOR
STANDING UP FOR RETIRED
TEACHERS. WHO HAVE LIVED A LIFE
OF PUBLIC OF PUBLIC SERVICE.
THANK YOU. OKAY THANK YOU. I'M A
LITTLE UNCLEAR AS TO WHETHER
THERE'S A SECOND LEAD SUPPORT
WITNESS. YES, THERE IS, MR
HAUSER. I DIDN'T SEE MR FULLY
HERE HE WAS LISTED. YOU MAY GO
AHEAD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YOU
MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, SENATOR COURTESY AND
ZIMMERMAN, COOPER AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DONALD
HAUSER. I AM A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETIRED TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION, AND I AM SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF BOTH GEORGIA MORE
AND THE THOUSANDS OF RETIRED
TEACHERS WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED
IN A NEGATIVE WAY BY A CALLOUS
TRES AUDIT. RETIREES HAVE BEEN
PUT INTO A HORRIBLE SITUATION TO
HAVING TO PAY FOR MISTAKES THAT
THEY DID NOT MAKE PRIOR TO
RETIRING FROM CAL STIRS RETIREES
FOLLOW THE DIRECTION FROM CAL
STARS. THEY MEET WITH A
COUNSELOR. THEY CONFIRM THE
INFORMATION WITH DISTRICT THEY
FACTORY ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND
THE SKYROCKETING INCREASES IN
MEDICARE, AND THEY TRY TO CREATE
A LITTLE CUSHION. FOR THE
UNPREDICTABLE ENVIRONMENTS THAT
ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, SUCH AS
SKYROCKETING INFLATION. RETIREES
MAKE A FINAL DECISION WILL
RETIRE BASED ON THE NUMBERS THEY
HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM CAL STARS
TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE GOING TO
HAVE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THEIR LIVES.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR A NUMBER OF
RETIREES, THEIR WORLD HAS BEEN
SHAKEN BY BY BEING NOTIFIED IN
THE CONFUSING AND HEARTLESS
MANNER THAT AN ERROR WAS MADE.
AND NOT ONLY IS THERE CAROL
STIRS CHECK GOING TO BE REDUCED.
PERMANENTLY BUT THAT THEY OWE
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BACK TO CAL
STARTERS. AT NO TIME DID CAL
STIRS OR THE DISTRICT INFORM
THESE RETIREES THAT THE YEARS OF
PLANNING BASED UPON THE
INFORMATION THEY RECEIVED WAS
INCORRECT. WELL, SOMETIMES THE
MISTAKES ARE THE FAULT OF THE
DISTRICT. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND OUT
THAT MANY TIMES THE FAULT IS
FROM CAL STIRS. AND THIS
SITUATION IS JUST SIMPLY NOT
ACCEPTABLE. RETIREES SHOULD NOT
BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, PAYING FOR
MISTAKES THAT THEY NOT ONLY
DIDN'T MAKE, BUT COULDN'T HAVE
KNOWN ABOUT. A B 16 67 WILL GIVE
RETIREES TRUST IN CALLOUS TRES
AGAIN. BY PROTECTING RETIREES
FROM PAYING FOR MISTAKES THAT
THEY DIDN'T MAKE, AND ALSO
ENSURING THAT THE CANISTERS
AUDIT PROCESS IS MORE
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE. SO
THAT ALL STAKEHOLDERS GET WORK
TO ENSURE THIS SITUATION DOES
NOT OCCUR AGAIN. ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RETIRED TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION ARE DUE TO PROTECT
RETIRED TEACHERS BY SUPPORTING A
B 16 67. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR HAUSER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISHES
TO EXPRESS THE SUPPORT POSITION
ON THE BILL? THIS IS FOR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. YES
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
ANDREA BALL ON BEHALF OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF
SUBURBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU AND THANK THE
AUTHOR. YEAH GOOD AFTERNOON,
DOROTHY JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, PLEASE SUPPORT
GOOD AFTERNOON, DERRICK LENNOX,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION
, REPRESENTING THE 58 COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS,
PROUD TO BE A CO SPONSOR OF THIS
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
AFTERNOON PAMELA GIBBS,
REPRESENTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, AND
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BILL.
I'M PAT BOYD, RETIRED TEACHER
FROM THE SACRAMENTO NORTHEAST
DIVISION OF LRT. A AND I SUPPORT
THIS. GOOD AFTERNOON, ELIZABETH
ESQUIVEL WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS
OFFICIALS AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HELLO CASSIE MANCINI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIRMAN, SENATOR
SETH BRAMBLE HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION. WE ARE PROUD
SPONSORS. JENNIFER BAKER ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA RETIRED
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, ANOTHER
PROUD CO SPONSOR. GOOD AFTERNOON
, STEPHEN G DEMOCRACY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION AND
STRONG SUPPORT. OKAY LOOKS LIKE
THAT'S IT. THE MODERATOR,
MODERATE POLICE QUÊ UP ANY
SUPPORT WITNESSES ON 16 67 AT
THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND IF YOU'RE IN SUPPORT, PLEASE
PRESS A ONE, DÂN ZERO.
AND AT THE TIME NO ONE'S QUEUING
UP. OKAY. THANK YOU, MODERATOR.
WE WILL WORK TO OPPOSITION AT
THIS TIME. AND WE HAVE NO LISTED
LEAD OPPOSITION, BUT WE CAN OPEN
IT UP TO ANYONE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM. WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS POST
POSITION. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
TO DO THAT? I SEE. NONE WILL GO
TO THE MODERATOR MODERATE THIS
TIME. WOULD YOU CHECK FOR
OPPOSITION UNTIL CONFERENCE
LINE, PLEASE? THANK YOU. AND IF
YOU WERE IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE
PRESS THE 10.
AND NO ONE IS QUEUING UP AT THIS
TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
MODERATOR. WE WILL COME BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION,
SENATOR ALERT. UM THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. UM I COMMEND THE AUTHOR
BECAUSE WE HAD A BILL ON A
SIMILAR TOPIC LAST YEAR THAT WAS
VERY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT INTERESTS IN THE
SCHOOL WORLD. AND CLEARLY YOU'VE
WORKED IN IT IS NOT OFTEN THAT
THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE
TESTIFIES FOR THE SAME THING. SO
CONGRATULATIONS, AND, UH IS
SOMEBODY WHO HAS A MOTHER THAT
IS ABOUT TO BE. 98 HAS BEEN A
RETIRED TEACHER AND STIRS FOR 37
YEARS. I'M GLAD THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS HAVE PROBABLY RUN ON
ERRORS FOR HER. SO CONGRATS ON
HAVING THIS TOGETHER. THERE IS
NO OPPOSITION. I WOULD MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I'M
SEEING NONE WILL GIVE YOU AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. THAT IS MY
CLOTHES. ALRIGHT WE'LL GO TO THE
CONSULTANT NOW WITH THE MOTION
FROM SENATOR LAIRD, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY, SENATOR CORTEZ E Z.
I, SENATOR KOA BUG, SENATOR
DURAZO, WHEREAS OI, SENATOR
LAIRD LAYERED I, SENATOR NEWMAN.
ALL RIGHT, NEWMAN I THAT BILL IS
OUT FOR ZERO. BILLS ARE ON
AFFORD TO ZERO VOTE. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO A B.
16 OH, FOUR FOR OTHERS HERE. WAS
LOOKING FOR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HOLDEN. DO WE HAVE ANY AUTHOR
HERE? YEAH WE SHOULD DO THAT
CLOSE EVERYTHING OUT DILUTION
CALLS, EXCEPT THAT SENATOR WELL,
SENATOR NEWMAN WOULD HAVE BEEN
HERE ON CONSENT. HE'S BEEN ON
EVERY BILL ALREADY. THANK YOU.
UM SO WE'RE GONNA LIFT THE CALL
AND FILE ITEM NUMBER 15. MAYBE
24 31. THIS ITEM IS ON CONSENT.
SENATOR CORTEZ E. ORTEZ EI
SENATOR KOA BOGUE, SENATOR
LAIRD. LAYERED I THAT BILL IS
OUT FOR ZERO. OKAY UM, CONSENT
BILL IS OUT ON A 4 TO 0 VOTE.
NEXT UP FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE A.
B 24 93. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST
BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY SENATOR
CORTEZ E Z. I, SENATOR KOA
BOGUE. THAT BILL IS OUT FOR
ZERO. ALRIGHT A B 24 93 IS OUT
ON A 4 TO 0 VOTE. NEXT FILE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR A B 9 83. THE MOTION
IS DUE PAST BUT FIRST REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY.
SENATOR CHARLES BOGUE. SENATOR
DURAZO DURAZO. AYE. THAT BILL IS
OUT 321. IS MY LADY. OKAY. THANK
YOU. 93 IS OUT ON A 3 TO 1 VOTE.
THANK YOU. FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE
A B 25 24. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS, BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY SENATOR
CA BOGUE. SENATOR DURAZO
TERRAZZO, AYE. THIS BILL IS OUT
FOR ZERO. THE BILL WAS ON ON THE
FORD TO REPORT ANYTHING BOTH.
THANK YOU. FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX
A B 15 77. THE MOTION IS DUE
PAST BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY SENATOR
CORTEZ E Z. I SENATOR KOBO GTA,
SENATOR LAIRD LAYERED I THIS
BILL IS OUT FOR ZERO. ALRIGHT
MAYBE 15 77 IS OUT FOR 20. THANK
YOU. FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN A B
21 83. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS,
BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY SENATOR
CORTEZ E Z. I, SENATOR KOA
BOGUE. THIS BILL IS OUT FOR 0 21
83 IS OUT ON AFFORDED ZERO VOTE.
FILE ITEM NUMBER 11 A B 2068.
THE MOTION IS DUE PAST BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS SENATOR CORTEZ E.
ORTEZ EI SENATOR KOA BOGUE.
SENATOR DURAZO DURAZO I THAT
BILL IS OUT 40 ALRIGHT, A B 2066
IS OUT ON 2068 IS THAT IN A 4 TO
0? ALRIGHT LAST CALL. FILE ITEM
NUMBER 12 A B 22 OH, FOUR. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS, BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY, UTILITIES AND
COMMUNICATIONS. SENATOR CORTEZ E
. ORTEZ EI SENATOR KOBOKO.
SENATOR DURAZO DURAZO. AYE
SPILLS OUT FOR ZERO, MAYBE 22.
OH, FOUR IS OUT ON A 4 TO 0
VOTE. ALRIGHT THERE GETS US
CURRENT AND THAT WE HAVE AN
AUTHOR HERE CURRENTLY,
APPARENTLY NOT. JUST NOTE WHILE
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE WAITING
FOR AN AUTHOR THAT THIS ROOM IS
GOING TO HAVE TO BE CLEARED OF
THIS COMMITTEE AT 1 15. THERE'S
A 1 30 COMMITTEE SCHEDULED HERE.
THEY WERE SPECIAL NAME TAG FOR
RULES. SENATE SENATOR LARRY IT
IS PLEDGING NOT TO MOVE FROM HIS
CURRENT POSITION FOR A WHILE
THE REST OF US THE REST OF US.
UM IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO
BE PACKING UP AND MOVING OUT OF
HERE. 1 15 FOR RECESS WHEN THAT
TIME COMES, SO IT IS. IT APPEARS
TO BE MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
FOR US TO FINISH THE REMAINING
BILLS, AND SO WE'LL HAVE TO
RECESS AND RECONVENE. IT WOULD
HELP IF WE HAD AUTHORS HERE, OF
COURSE. AS I GO TO EVERY MINUTE
THAT WE WAIT NOW. TO SAY IT.
POSES. IT WAS OH, ARE WE ALLOWED
TO PUT THEM ALL IN CONSENT SINCE
WE HAVE AN ABSENT MEMBER.
HOLD IN HOME. HOLDING THAT WE
HAVE EIGHT. 10 13 14 16 TO 7.
COOL WITH THAT. WHAT IS IT? YOU
GOT A LIST OF SHARE. THEY PUT
THEIR FOOD IN THE BATHROOM.
YOU'RE GONNA EAT TUNA DAYS. AS
LONG AS HE WAS RAISED. SIZED,
ALWAYS.
FOR WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND
FORMALLY RECESS FOR HOPEFULLY
JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES WHILE
WE'RE WAITING FOR AN AUTHOR JUST
SO THAT WE'RE NOT RECORDING.
CHURCH. THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT
IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. FOR BEING HERE. WE
APPRECIATE IT. I ASSUME YOU'LL
TAKE UP 20 TO 43 1ST 28 43 TO
243 OF 2 TO 43 AND 2847. WE JUST
WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD WHICH
ONE? WE'RE DEALING WITH 1ST 20
TO 43 20 TO 43 THANK YOU. AND
WHENEVER YOU'RE PREPARED, HE MAY
pBILL WOULD ASK CALIFORNIA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
STANDARDS BOARD TO CONSIDER
MAKING CHANGES TO THEIR HEAT
ILLNESS STANDARDS. AND THEY'RE
WILDFIRE SMOKE STANDARDS TO
FURTHER PROTECT OUTDOOR WORKERS
FROM EXTREME EXTREME HEAT
CONDITIONS. SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
OUR OFFICE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY
WORKING WITH OPPOSITION HAVE HAD
ME MADE SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS
TO POINT THAT CHAMBER HAS
REMOVED TO NEUTRAL. ALSO BROUGHT
TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE BILL
CONTAINS SOME CONTRADICTORY
SECTIONS IN TERMS OF HEART AND
HE ILLNESS PREVENTION PLANS
WOULD NEED TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO
EMPLOYEES AND THE DEADLINE FOR
SUBMISSION OF NEW ROOM MAKING
PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE OUTDOOR
HEAT AND WILDFIRE SMOKING
REGULATIONS COMMIT TO CLARIFYING
THOSE TWO POINTS AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD IF I GET THE
PRIVILEGE IN TWO, SO
RESPECTFULLY ASK GÂY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. AND DO WE HAVE A LEAD
WITNESS ON YOUR BELIEVE WE DO 20
TO 43 LET ME THEY'RE CALLING IN
OKAY, LET ME GET TO THAT. PAGE
HERE. THEY'RE LITTLE BEAR WITH
ME TAKING THINGS A LITTLE OUT OF
ORDER. TODAY WE'D SUPPORT
WITNESS DEATH, KENT. BETH KENT
IS SHOULD BE ON THE COASTLINE.
AND IF YOU ARE, YOU MAY PROCEED.
SHE'S NOT THERE YET. AREA. WHY
DON'T WE? WE CAN COME BACK TO
THE LEAD SUPPORT WITNESS. IN
OTHER WORDS, I'LL MAKE THAT CALL
ONE MORE TIME. BUT IN THE
MEANWHILE IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISHES
TO EXPRESS THE SUPPORT POSITION
ON THE BILL? C'MON COME FORWARD
. LET ME GO TO THE MODERATOR
MODERATOR TO QUEUE UP ANY
SUPPORT WITNESSES ON THE
TELECONFERENCE LINE. THIS IS A B
20 TO 43. OKAY FOR 80 2043. IF
YOU MARK YOU UP. FOR THAT PRESS
STAR 10 AND YOUR PHONE RIGHT
NOW. WE HAVE ONE LINE IN EUROPE
ONE MOMENT. SURE.
OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE LINE.
ONE LINE 1 77, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO THIS IS ELISE PHÊN DRIK
WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
VOTERS IN SUPPORT. ANYONE ELSE
MODERATOR? IN SUPPORT. YES ONE
OTHER PERSON ISN'T SUPPORT AND
THAT WILL COME FROM LINE NUMBER
18, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HEY GUYS
AND REMAINING INSTITUTE WERE IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MODERATOR. WE'RE GOING TO GO
BACK TO THE LEAD SUPPORT WITNESS
I UNDERSTAND IS ON THE LINE NOW
, AND IF YOU ARE, YOU MAY
PROCEED BEGIN. THIS IS A B 20 TO
43. CLOUD MY NAME IS BETH TENT
AND I'M AN M. IT SPRINKLE FELLOW
IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY
. I USED A SCHOOL OF PLOT AND
HERE IN SUPPORT OF A B 20 TO 43
. I'D LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GARCIA FOR
INTRODUCING THIS IMPORTANT SELF.
COACHES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
LEGISLATION AND POLICY CLINIC
AND LAST FALL I WORKED WITH A
GROUP OF LAW STUDENTS TO ANALYZE
SLOSHES CURRENT EATING AIR
QUALITY REGULATIONS. AND TO
DEVELOP RAGGY LIKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN
THESE REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF
CALIFORNIA'S INTENSIFYING
CLIMATE CRISIS AND INCREASING
INSTANCES OF WILDFIRES AND
EXTREME HEAT. WILD CAL OSHA'S
CURRENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED THE
FINE, STRONGER PROTECTIONS ARE
NEEDED TO PROTECT WORKERS FROM
THE TASTE AND BRUTAL WORKING
CONDITIONS THAT ARE CREATED WHEN
TEMPERATURES SURPASSED 105
DEGREES. AND MANY LIKE 300 BY
REQUIRING HELLO SHOULD CONSIDER
PROVIDING MANDATORY HOURLY PAID
. REST. BREAKS ACCESSIBLE, COOL
WATER AND INCREASE HE RELATED
ILLNESS SYMPTOM MONITORING ULTRA
HIGH HEAT DAYS. AS WELL AS
RESPIRATORY EQUIPMENT DURING
WILDFIRES. A B 20 TO 43 WOULD
BETTER PROTECT WORKERS, MOST
DANGEROUS HEAT AND AIR QUALITY
IMPACT. MOREOVER BY CREATING A
NEW TIER PROTECTIONS THAT FIT
WITHIN THE EXISTING REGULATIONS.
MAYBE 20 TO 40 THREE'S APPROACH
. IT'S EASY TO IMPLEMENT AND
IMPACTS THE SAME WORK PLACES
THAT ARE ALREADY SUBJECT,
EXISTING OUTDOOR HEAT ILLNESS
PREVENTION AND WILDFIRE SMOKE
STANDARDS. MAYBE 20 TO 43 IS A
CRITICAL STEP PROTECTING
VULNERABLE, ESSENTIAL WORKERS
WHO RISKED THEIR LIVES PROVIDES
FOOD FOR ALL OF US, AND WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY, AND WE ALREADY MOVED
THROUGH OTHER SUPPORT WITNESSES
ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL. IF
YOU'RE JUST PAYING ATTENTION,
NOW, BOTH IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM
AND ON THE TELECONFERENCE LINE.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE. YES WE DO
HAVE ELITE OPPOSITION WITNESS.
IN FACT, WE HAVE TWO OF THEM. UM
KITTY HANSEN ON THE CO HOST
LINE. IF YOU'RE THERE YOU MAY
BEGIN. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. UM THIS IS KATIE HANSEN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
CREATION. JUST ONE MINUTE. OKAY
WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THE
AUTHOR CONTINUING TO WORK WITH
THE OPPOSITION COALITION. RECENT
AMENDMENTS DO NOT FULLY
ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT WE
HAVE, AND WE MUST REMAIN OPPOSED
TO 20 TO 43. 20 TO 43 IS
DUPLICATIVE OF CURRENT AND
PENDING CAL OSHA STANDARDS, THE
HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION AND
OUTDOOR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT
STANDARD ALREADY COVERS
ACCLIMATIZING EMPLOYEES, HIGHER
TEMPERATURES AND TO RECEIVE
TRAINING ON IT. CALLUSES SPENT
TWO YEARS HOLDING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND
FELICITY'S STAKEHOLDER INPUT AS
WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE
HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION IN
INDOOR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT
STANDARDS. THE RESTAURANT
COMMUNITY HAS BEEN HIGHLY
ENGAGED IN THE CALISTA
REGULATORY PROCESS TO DATE, AND
WE DO NOT SEE A NEED FOR
LEGISLATION TO DUPLICATE OR
POTENTIALLY DISRUPT THAT
PROCESS. THE EXTENSIONS REVIEW
PROCESS BY OSHA. AND THE
PROPOSED STANDARD HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND WE'RE JUST
AWAITING FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE
CAL OSHA STANDARD SPORT FOR THIS
NEW REGULATION TO BE FINALIZED.
THE HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION IN
INDOOR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT
STANDARDS ALREADY ADDRESSES
ACCLIMATIZATION INDOOR PLACES OF
IMPLEMENT SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE
STANDARD EMPLOYERS ARE REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE TRAINING TO EMPLOY
YOU ON THE CONCEPT IMPORTANT AND
METHODS OF INCLEMENT IZATION OF
CLOSE OBSERVATION DURING THE
CLIMATE STATION PURSUANT TO THE
EMPLOYERS PROCEDURES.
ADDITIONALLY EMPLOYERS ARE
REQUIRED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
PERSONAL RISK FACTORS FOR HEAT.
UNLESS FOR EACH EMPLOYEE,
INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES, DEGREE
OF ACCLIMATIZATION. PLAYERS ARE
ALSO REQUIRED TO CLOSELY OBSERVE
EMPLOYERS DURING THIS PROCESS.
THE STANDARD EVEN TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT ACCLIMATIZATION DURING
HEATWAVES. ENGINEERING CONTROLS
, SUCH AS AIR CONDITIONERS ARE
NOT EFFICIENT CONTROL THE EFFECT
OF OUTDOOR HEAT ON INDOOR
TEMPERATURES. STANDARD DEFINES A
HEATWAVE FOR THIS PROCESS TO BE
THE OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE WILL BE
AT LEAST 80 DEGREES, OR AT LEAST
10 DEGREES HIGHER THAN AVERAGE.
DAILY HIGH FINDING A HEATWAVE AT
80 DEGREES IN THIS SECTION IS
ALREADY AN EXTREMELY STRONG
PROTECTION. SECTION ONE CD ONE A
B 20 TO 43 REQUIRING CALA SHIP
TO CONSIDER DEVELOPING OR
REVISING EXISTING REGULATIONS TO
ADD ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS
RELATED TO ACCLIMATIZATION TO
HIGHER TEMPERATURES DUPLICATIVE.
THIS EXISTING STANDARD THAT HAS
BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED. AND IS
UNNECESSARY. FURTHERMORE THIS
SECTION IN 20 TO 43 WOULD
POTENTIALLY DELAY THE ADOPTION
OF THE HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION
AND INDOOR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT
STANDARD THAT WE HAVE SPENT
YEARS WORKING WITH SCHOLARSHIP
TO DEVELOP. PLEASE DO NOT ADD
FURTHER DELAY TO THIS PROCESS.
WE URGE YOU TO OPPOSE A B 20 TO
43. THANK YOU. THANK YOU JUST
JUST TO NOTE THAT SENATOR
ORTESI HAD LEAVE TO PRESENT A
BILL WILL BE SERVING AS CHAIR
UNTIL HE RETURNS OUR NEXT LEAD.
WITNESSING OPPOSITIONS, MR
MICHAEL MILLER. FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION. WINE
GRAPE GROWERS. MR MILLER, PLEASE
PROCEED. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
MEMBERS AND STAFF YOU'VE HAD
YOU'VE HAD QUITE A DAY AND A
GREAT JOB CHERRY COMMITTED THIS
MORNING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL
MILLER. I AM THE COMPANY
SUCCESSION. ONE GROUP GROWERS.
AND UH, THIS OURSELVES WITH THE
COMMENTS FROM YOU CAN YOU HAVE
THAT SHE JUST MADE WHICH TO
APPRECIATE SORT OF AMENDMENTS DO
IMPROVE. THE BILL, HOWEVER, WERE
STILL OPPOSED. 2043 AS THE BILL
IS SIMPLY NOT NEEDED, AND IT
CREATES A MANDATE THAT IS
CONTRARY TO LONGSTANDING
PRACTICE AT CAL OSHA AND AT THE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY HEALTH
STANDARDS BOARD. THIS IS
PRIMARILY BECAUSE ON PAGE THREE
LINES 33 CONTINUES TO REQUIRE
THE BOARD TO ADOPT THE NEW
WILDFIRE REGULATION. THERE'S A
LOT OF PROCESS OF LAW WHEREBY
TELEVISION DRAFTS AND MEMBERS TO
REGULATION AND A DRAFT OF THE
MEMBERS TO THE BOARD FOR
CONSIDERATION. WE DON'T BELIEVE
IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE MANDATED OUTCOME, AN
INDEPENDENT BOARD IN THIS CASE
WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING FOR SURE,
BUT THE DRAFTING MEMBERS MIGHT
PROPOSE FOR BROADER PERSPECTIVE
. YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE WELL
FIRST WILL BRING AMENDED. I
APPRECIATE THE SPONSORS.
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS. HOWEVER IF
THERE WERE A NEED FOR SUCH AN
AMENDMENT ALREADY A PROCESS IN
LAW ADDRESS THIS SPONSORS COULD
HAVE AMENDMENT BY SUBMITTING A
PETITION TO THE BOARD DIRECTLY
ASKING FOR THOSE CHANGES. TODAY
NO SUCH PETITION HAS BEEN FILED.
BY THE SPONSORS OR BY ANYBODY
RIGHT VENUE TO DEAL WITH THIS.
WITH THIS CHANGE THE REGULATION
IS THROUGH THAT POTENTIAL
PROCESS, NOT BECAUSE I JUST WAS
MANDATE FOR THOSE REASONS WE
SPECIFICALLY ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSES. STILL AND WE DO ASPIRIN
. NO BELT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. HAVE A GOOD DAY. AND THANK
YOU. MR MILLER'S. ANYBODY HERE
IN THE HEARING ROOM WOULD LIKE
TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION. OF 20
TO 43. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE BRIAN LITTLE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION IN OPPOSITION FOR THE
REASONS ARTICULATED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF MY
GRAPE GROWERS AND THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. MR CHAIR, CHRIS
MCKAY LI ON BEHALF OF THE
HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HERE IN PERSON
? I'VE SEEN NONE. MR MODERATOR,
LET'S GO TO THE TELECONFERENCE
LINE FOR WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
, THEIR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION, PLEASE. IF YOU ARE AN
OPPOSITION PRESS LONDON ZERO ON
YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD AT THIS
MOMENT. OUR FIRST FROM LINE
NUMBER 1 83 YEARS. GO AHEAD.
LINE 1 83 YEAR LINE IS OPEN.
AYE. DID NOT CATCH THAT. 16. ARE
YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME AND I CAN
HEAR YOU PLEASE PROCEED. YES
OKAY. I'M ACTUALLY CALLED IN
QUEUE FOR SUPPORT, NOT
OPPOSITION, AND I WAS NEVER
CALLED. SO PLEASE GO AHEAD. I'M
HERE WITH THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK TO
VOICE MY SUPPORT OF 82 TO 43
WITH AMENDMENTS THAT WILL
SUPPORT FARMWORKERS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR MODERATOR. BACK TO
POSITION, PLEASE. ALIGN. 1 80,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. LINE 1 81 80,
PLEASE PROCEED.
LINE 21. HE'S PROCEED. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, CODY
BOILS ON BEHALF OF THE FARMERS
LEADING OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. GO TO LINE 1 98
BEFORE HEAD. THANK YOU. SENATORS
TODD BLOOM STEIN FOR THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION OPPOSED THANK YOU
NEXT, PLEASE. WE HAVE NO FURTHER
OPPOSITION AT THE MOMENT. THANK
YOU. LET'S COME BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM TO MY
COLLEAGUES ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ON THE BILL? SENATOR
ROSCOE, PLEASE QUESTION FOR THE
AUTHOR. UM I'VE HEARD OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. FROM
OPPOSITION THAT THIS IS NOT
NEEDED. THAT IT'S DUPLICATIVE,
AND IT'S DISRUPTIVE. UM
REPLACING PROCESS. THAT'S
ALREADY IN, YOU KNOW EXISTS.
SORT OF THE SAME THEME. SO I
KNOW YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT. BUT
YOU KNOW, WE REALLY WOULD LOVE
TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO I'LL
I'LL OPEN UP AND THEN I'LL ASK
BETH KENT TO KIND OF ELABORATE
ON THAT. BUT REGULATIONS ARE NOT
APPROVED. APPLICATIVES,
CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE A 105
DEGREE, HE STANDARD AND WE'RE
ASKING CAL OSHA TO DEVELOP FOR
THE PROTECTIONS THAT WOULD HELP.
ADDRESS THE PUBLIC HEALTH
THREATS TO WORKERS OUTDOORS. I'M
GOING TO ASK BETH KEN TO KIND OF
ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT
AND PERHAPS EVEN ADDRESS SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE. ON THAT BASIS OF THE
SAME QUESTION. THANK YOU.
ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S UM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SAID THE
CURRENT STANDARDS DON'T ADDRESS
OF THE HOTTEST OF THE HOT BEES.
THEY HAVE, UM, STANDARDS THAT
KICK IN AT 85 DEGREES AND 95
DEGREES, BUT NOTHING THAT
DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN 95 100
100 AND FIVE DEGREES. TIME OR
EVEN, YOU KNOW, 100 AND 10 OR
115. AND THERE'S A REALLY
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FOR
WORKERS IN THE EFFECTS ON THE
BODY BETWEEN 95 DEGREES AND 105
DEGREES, AND SO THIS IS VERY
MUCH IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT
REGULATIONS AND THE CURRENT
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK, AND IT'S
CREATING AN ADDITIONAL PAIR OF
PROTECTIONS WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S GETTING
HOTTER HERE, AND IT'S GETTING
MORE DANGEROUS FOR WORKERS. TIME
AND THEN THE COMMENT THAT THIS
COULD BE DONE FOR FISHIN.
THERE'S ALWAYS DIFFERENT WAYS TO
DO THINGS, BUT THIS IS A PLACE
WHERE WE SEE REAL HARM HAPPENING
TO WORKERS. AND THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LEGISLATURE
TO COME IN AND TO CREATE THESE
PROTECTIONS THAT CAN BE DONE
MUCH MORE QUICKLY, UM, AND ALSO
SAY THAT THE WAY THE BILL IS
CRAFTED ASKING HOW OSHA WHO
CONSIDER AND IMPLEMENT THESE
STANDARDS THAT WERE NOT
CIRCUMVENTING ANY OTHER
PROCESSES, BUT RATHER AND THIS
IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO EXPLAIN OR
EXPRESS HOW OLD SAID THAT THIS
IS AN ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE AND
SOMETHING THAT THEY REALLY WANT
THEM TO TAKE ON. UM GIVEN THE
SEVERITY AND HOW THIS IMPACTS
WORKERS AND PARTICULARLY FARM
WORKERS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
AND OTHER FOLKS WHO DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
LOBBY FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF
DIFFERENT PRIVILEGES OR LACK
THERE OUT. HAPPY TO ANSWER OTHER
QUESTIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY,
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR AND WHEN APPROPRIATE
, LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL. THANK
YOU, SENATOR ASIA CENTER
LITTERED ANYTHING. LET ME ASK
YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE THE I'M
INTRIGUED. BYE MISS HANSEN'S
TESTIMONY, SO WHY NOT MAKE A
DISTINCTION OR AN ALLOWANCE
DELIBERATELY FOR OR WHAT IS WHAT
IS THE DISTINCTION MADE FOR
INDOOR WORK? MM. WHEN ASKED BETH
TO KIND OF, AND I'M GOING TO ASK
THE SAME QUESTION OF MISS HANSON
AS WELL BEST FOUR. I THANK YOU.
AND SO THERE IS A SEPARATE
STANDARDS FOR INDOOR WORKERS.
THAT WAS I BELIEVE, PASSED BY
THE LEGISLATURE AND HIS. WE WERE
WAITING FOR CAL OSHA TO FINALIZE
THOSE STANDARDS. SO IT'S NOT
THAT WE'VE DRAWN THE LINE
BETWEEN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR
WORKERS, BUT RATHER THERE WERE
THESE EXISTING HEAT AND DONE
WILDFIRE SMOKE STANDARDS FOR
OUTDOOR WORKERS AND THEN A
SEPARATE PROCESS. THE 30 MOVING
FOR INDOOR WORKERS BECAUSE THOSE
STANDARDS HAVEN'T BEEN
FINALIZED. WE DIDN'T WANT TO
MESS WITH THEM JUST YET INTO
THAT PRICE. WE FOCUS ON THE
EXISTING FRAMEWORK AND HOW
THEY'RE IMPACTING OUTDOOR
WORKERS AND HOW WE CAN
STRENGTHEN NOT FIRST. AND THEN
WE'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS
WITH THE INDOOR ONES AND FOLKS
CONNECTED DISTINCTIONS LATER,
BUT THAT WAS JUST TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH ME JUST BEING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. I
APPRECIATE THAT, SO AND SO, MISS
HAILSTON IF YOU'RE STILL ON THE
LINE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
SIERRA AND OTHERS HAVE DID WITH
WHOSE EMPLOYEES FOR THE MOST
PART WORKING DOORS ARE OPPOSED
THE BILL, CAN YOU CAN YOU
EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION SPECIAL AS
IT RELATES TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS BILL? ABSOLUTELY THE
SECTION THAT I CITED, UM WE
WOULD LIKE FURTHER CLARITY THAT
IT APPLIES TO THE OUTDOOR
STANDARD ONLY AND IT WOULD NOT
DISRUPT THE CURRENT APPROVAL
PROCESS FOR THE INDOOR STANDARD.
WE DO FEEL THAT THE INDOOR
STANDARD COVERS THIS SECTION OF
THE BILL REQUIRES YOU TO START
ACCLIMATIZING WORKERS AND ALL OF
THE TRAINING NECESSARY
REQUIREMENT. IN THE STANDARD,
AND ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU HAVE TO
START DOING THAT, YOU KNOW WHEN
YOU HAVE A HEAT WAVE OUTSIDE
OUTDOORS DEFINED AT 80 DEGREES,
SO WE DO FEEL THAT IS ADEQUATE
COVERAGE AND THAT'S KIND OF THE
BASIS FOR OUR OPPOSITION TO BE
20 TO 43. I THINK I GOT AT LEAST
A NON VERBAL INDICATION FROM THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THE YOU'RE OPEN
TO WORKING ON AMENDMENT IN THAT
REGARD, CLARIFICATION. IT'S NOT
VERY SUBSTANTIVE, RIGHT? AND
KIND OF CHIPS AWAY AT THE CORE
OF THE INTENTION THAT WE SHOULD
BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH NO
PROBLEM. I APPRECIATE THAT
SENATE COURTESY ABOUT YOU. TAKE
IT BACK OVER TO ROCK. OKAY KEEP
IT GOING. KEEP IT GOING.
ANYTHING TO ADD CENTER? GOOD TO
SEE I DID. OH, SORRY. I'M JUST
TRYING TO BE LIKE 20 TO 43. I'M
NOT GIVING YOU BACK TO GAMBLE. I
KNOW. I KNOW WHERE I'M AT ON
THIS ONE. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.
SO I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR ROSS. IS THAT CORRECT?
OKAY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GARCIA,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION ON THE
MATTER RESPECTFULLY AS FREE
EYEBALL. POLICE MADAM CONSULTANT
. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FILE ITEM
NUMBER 13. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS, BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SENATOR CORTEZ E Z. I, SENATOR
KOBO. SENATOR DURAZO. TERRAZZO
I, SENATOR LAIRD LAIRD. I,
SENATOR NEWMAN. ARE YOU VOTING,
NOT VOTING. THAT BILL IS OUT 30
AND LET ME HAND THE GAVEL BACK
TO CENTER CRITICISM. AS I TAKE
OVER THE CHAIR, WE WILL R
ANNOUNCE THAT BILL IS OUT OF THE
HOSPITAL HEARD ON A 4 TO 0 VOTE.
3 TO 0 VOTE. I APOLOGIZE. WITH
SARAH NEWMAN, NOT VOTING. WE
WILL. NOW DO WE? YES. THANK YOU.
HE'S READ MY MIND THEIR CENTER
LEARN. LOOKING UP AT THE
OPTIMIST SPEAKS UP GREAT. THIS
WOULD BE A B 28 47. CORRECT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. HE MAY PROCEED
. IF YOU'RE READY. THIS IS A
BILL THAT I THINK ALLIANCE.
QUITE WELL WITH CALIFORNIA'S
VALUES ITS PRINCIPLES OF
INCLUSION WHEN IT COMES TO
IMMIGRANTS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE
WORLD. PHIL WOULD CREATE THE
EXCLUDED WORKERS PILOT PROGRAM,
WHICH WILL PROVIDE UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS FOR WORKERS EXCLUDED
FROM TRADITIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE TO THEIR IMMIGRATION
STATUS. GO ON WITH THE DETAILS.
IT'S YOUR ANALYSIS OUTLINES.
VERY WELL WHAT THE STRUCTURE
MECHANICS OF THIS WOULD BE AND
I'LL JUST SAY THAT WE'VE HAD
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SUPPORT.
UM, ACROSS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. FOR THIS TO OCCUR.
PANDEMIC EXPOSED A LOT OF OUR
YOU KNOW SHORTCOMINGS WHEN IT
COMES TO TAKING CARE OF OUR
ESSENTIAL WORKERS, AND THIS
WOULD HELP IN MANY WAYS ADDRESS
THAT SO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS MATTER.
THANK YOU, AND WE DO SHOW ALL
THE SUPPORT WITNESS OF LOOSE
GALLEGOS ON THE COASTLINE THERE
YOU MAY PROCEED. OKAY WE DON'T
SEE EITHER OF LEAD WITNESSES ON
THE COASTLINE. WE'RE GOING TO
PASS ON THE LEAD SUPPORT
WITNESSES FOR A MOMENT WILL COME
BACK AND CHECK ONE MORE TIME.
ANYONE HERE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR 28 47. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. THEIR MEMBERS. MITCH
STAGGER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT ON A B 28 47 C.
NONE WILL GO TO THE TOTAL
CONFERENCE ALIGN. MODERATOR
WOULD YOU PLEASE QUEUE UP ANY
SUPPORT WHEN THIS IS FOR 28 47
WILL BE A B 28 47 28 47 SUPPORT. PEACE PRESS LONDON ZERO AT
THIS MOMENT, AND WE'LL START
WITH LINES. 25, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YES HYPER AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. THIS IS EDWIN BORE BONE
ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN'S
PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OH, WHEN EXPOSED TO LINE 1
71, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS VANESSA TEHRAN WITH THE
MISTAKE IN THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZING PROJECTS, CALLING AS
PART OF THE SAFETY NET DRAW
COALITION. I'M CALLING IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF A B 28 47 TO SUPPORT
EXCLUDED IMMIGRANT WORKERS AND
BUILD A MORE EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA FOR ALL. THANK YOU.
TAMBIÉN EXPO TWO LINE NUMBER 1
97 PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ON BEHALF OF ALL
THREE VEGETABLES, ESTÁN AND
SUPPORT YOU. WE'LL GO TO LINE TO
GO AHEAD. TO YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
I SORRY ABOUT THAT FORMULA WITH
THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER. UM AND ALSO CALLING AND
STRONG SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES STRONGER
TARGET ADVOCATES NETWORK. IN
SUPPORT OF MEASURE 80 28 47.
WHEN I GO TO LINE OVER 1 36.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. TIME 1 36 HAVE
LAWS. GONNA GALES. HELLO. I AM
ACTUALLY THE HE WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN ON HOLD. HELLO YES, PROCEED
. WE CAN HEAR YOU UNCLEAR. GO
AHEAD. AND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF
MINUTES FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS LUCA
DJANGO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
FIRST OF THE LEGAL CENTER WERE
ALSO PART OF THE 50 NETWORK
COALITION. THE INTRODUCTION OF A
B 28 47 ITS VALUE TO CUSTOMERS
THROUGH STRUGGLE AND REALITIES
OF OUR WORKING COMMUNITIES. IT
IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ELEVATE
THE REALITIES OF OUR MOST
VULNERABLE WORKFORCE ARE
UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS BY SETTING
THE LIGHTS THE INEQUITIES THAT
COMMUNITY EXIST. PROJECTED
INDEPENDENT MIX CONTINUES TO
AMPLIFY. I WANT TO INTRODUCE TO
YOU ALBERTO ALBERTO CANO, A 46
YEAR OLD FARM WORKERS FROM THE
COACHELLA VALLEY. ALBERT TANO
HAS BEEN HARVESTING THE FOOD WE
ALL EAT FOR OVER 28 YEARS. IN
2020. HE WAS IMPACTED BY COVID.
HE REFUSED TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL
, AND HE WILL REFUSED TO STOP
WORKING PEOPLE THEM WHAT WE HEAR
CONSTANTLY FROM OUR UNDOCUMENTED
WORKERS. KATA COMMISSION.
MILLION OF FOR ME. I CAN'T GET
MYSELF A LUXURY OF STEAM HOME
BECAUSE IF I DON'T EAT, MY
FAMILY DOES NOT EAT. MANY OF US
QUADRIGA WORKED THROUGH WAS
AFFECTED BY COVID. I'LL DO ONE
THAT CANNOT STILL ALIVE. ONE OF
HIS COWORKERS IS NOT HAS SHARED
SKILLS THAT HE CARRIES ON THE
IMPACT ON ON HIS MENTAL HEALTH,
CURRENTLY HAS VERY SEVERE LONG
DISTANCE SYMPTOMS. YEP PROBLEMS
BREATHING, BALANCING AND IS
LOSING HIS EYESIGHT. HE CANNOT
WORK AT THE SAME PACE AS HE USED
TO DO TO THIS. HE WAS RECENTLY
LAID OFF WITHOUT A SAFETY NET.
IN ADDITION, EVEN THE RECENT
MEDICAL EXTENSION HE IS NOT
WITHIN THE AGE GROUP QUALIFIED.
OUR WORK. OUR FARM WORKERS ARE
NOT DISPOSABLE THEIR MORAL
OBLIGATION AS THE STATE'S
PROTECT OUR FARM WORKERS AND ALL
ARE IMMIGRANTS WORKFORCE. THEY
ARE A SMALL VALUE FOR US ASKING
OUR WORK BY WORKERS CONTINUE TO
GIVE THE BEST YEARS OF THEIR
WORKING LIGHT FOR GOLDEN STATE
AND HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING
IN RETURN. RAIN OR SHINE. FARM
WORKERS ARE HARVESTING OUR
FRUITS, CONTRIBUTING TO OUR
ECONOMY AND KEPT TRADING FOR ONE
IMPORTANT POINT AND POINT
PERSON. THEY HAVE NEVER HAD
ACCESS TO WE ALL KNOW FARM
WORKERS ARE NOT A LIABILITY OR A
VERDEN FOUR STATES. THEY ARE THE
BIGGEST ASSET THEY MUST BE. WE
MUST VALUE THEM, PROTECT DEFENSE
AND APPRECIATE ITS WORKFORCE.
NOT ONLY IN TIMES OF CRISIS, BUT
ALWAYS WITH A D 28 47. WE HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY AND REALLY SHOW
OUR APPRECIATION TO THOSE THAT
WE ALL CALLED CONTINUITIES AT
LEAST APPRECIATED AND ALWAYS
INCLUDED. LET YOUR QUESTIONS BE
YOUR MORAL COMPASS AND VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THE A B 28 47. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DANIEL WAS ON.
OH IF YOU WERE ON THE LINE AS
THE OTHER LEAD SUPPORT WITNESS,
YOU MAY PROCEED. YES, I AM
TALKING ON BEHALF OF THE LEFT
TODAY. AND WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
NOW WE KNOW OKAY. THANK YOU WILL
HAVE TWO MINUTES. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO MY NAME IS
THE HIGH RWANDA LINO WITH
IMMINENT PRIMARY COLLECTED,
TAKING THAT FOR ALL COALITION. I
HAVE THE HONOR. SPEAKING FOR THE
TESTIMONY OF DANIEL LOZANO. B
OUR STUDENT AS WELL AS THE NEW
LEADER WITHIN OUR ORDER. AND SHE
IS IN SUPPORT OF 80 2047.
BECAUSE OF THAT REASON WHY?
BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE REALITY OF
OUR UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS. FIRST
WEAPON LEFT WITHOUT A STEADY
INCOME. WHICH IS WHAT THROUGHOUT
THE PANDEMIC. MY BIGGEST FEARS
WAS THINKING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
IF MY MOM BECAME AN EMPLOYED AND
NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO FALL BACK
PHONES, THEY ALMOST BECAME A
REALITY AND MOTHER'S INCOME
LOWERED. INCREDIBLY THERE WAS
MANY SACRIFICES WE MADE. WE
MANAGED TO STAY FIGHT.
UNFORTUNATELY MY FAMILY WAS NOT
THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD TO MAKE
DIFFICULT SACRIFICES TO KEEP US
AFLOAT. THOUSANDS OF OTHER
UNDOCUMENTED FAMILY EVEN WORK.
THIS WAS FORCED TO SCRAPE BY
THESE ARE THE SAME UNDOCUMENTED
WORKERS AND RECALLING HEROES,
THE ONES WHO CONTINUE TO SHOW US
TO DISINFECT OUR OFFICES ARE
GROCERY STORIES ARE PUBLIC
RESTROOMS AND THE ONE WHO TOOK
CARE OF OUR SICK THEY WERE THE
FRONTLINE WORKERS RECEIVED
APPLAUSE AND RECOGNITION AND IN
TWEETS AND INSTAGRAM BECAUSE
THEY WORK NET WEB SILENCE WHEN
WE ASK PEOPLE TO SUPPORT US IF
YOU EVER GOT SICK OR ENDED UP
UNEMPLOYED GOVERNMENT LOCKDOWNS
. THIS IS WHY IT IS ESSENTIAL
FROM DOCUMENTS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMS INTO THEN DOCUMENT
COMMUNITIES. EVERYONE NEEDS TO
HAVE A DOG PEACE JUST AS MUCH AS
THEY NEED SUPPORT THAT JOB EVER
FAILS THEM. WE ARE NOT NUMBERS
WE ARE HUMANS, LIKE EVERYONE
ELSE DOES NOT EXIST. THIS IS NOT
A GESTURE OF ASKED FOR ACCESS
CHINA'S CITIES HAVING
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS RIGHT AS
WORKERS. WITHOUT I LEAVE THE
VOTE UP TO THE BODY OF LEADERS
WHO WILL HOPEFULLY SHOW UP FOR
THE EXCLUDED WORKERS JUST LIKE
THEY SHOWED UP FOR US DURING THE
PANDEMIC. AND THANK YOU. AND
THAT IS DANIELA TESTIMONY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
ROOM AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE
HERE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM IS
JUST TO EXPRESS SUPPORT POSITION
ON THIS BILL. MAYBE 28 47. UM
SEE NONE. MODERATOR DID WE GO TO
THE MODERATOR ALREADY ON SUPPORT
? IF NOT, PLEASE CHECK A LOT OF
PEOPLE. LOT OF PEOPLE. OKAY
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIMIT THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY BY
NATURE OF THE FACT THAT WE ONLY
HAVE THIS ROOM FOR FOUR MORE
MINUTES. SO MODERATOR AT THE END
OF FOUR MINUTES, YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO, UM, CUT OFF THE
TESTIMONY. RETURN IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. OKAY WE
WILL DO THAT. WE'LL GO WITH
LINE. 1 74, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, OR REBECA
GONZALEZ FOR THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS,
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AND SUPPORT.
WE WILL GO TO 1 78, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. AFTERNOON I'M KIMBERLY
HERNANDEZ WITH THE INLAND EMPIRE
IMMIGRANT, YOUTH, COLLECTIVE AND
SUPPORT OF A V 2047. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO TO ONE. OH, ONE, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS ELIE MILAN
WITH THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
CENTER CALLING IN SUPPORT OF A B
28 47. THANK YOU. WE WILL GO TO
LINE 206. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HÌNH
DID AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SANDY
FAMILY. I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF
THIS CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK,
CALIFORNIA CLIMATE AND
AGRICULTURE NETWORK AND THE U.
S. C. W WESTERN STATES COUNCIL
AS PART OF THE FARM WORKER OUT
OF THE WORKING GROUP. CALLING
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 28 47.
THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO LINE 1
88, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ABLE TO
COMPROMISE. SO WE ARE STRONG
SUPPORT A B 28 47. THANK YOU. WE
WILL GO TO LINE TWO. OH, EIGHT.
FEES BY HEAD. SOLANO COMIC UP.
THE COALITION. YEAH. IN THE END
OF THIS IMMIGRANTS. IN
CALIFORNIA THAT GRACIAS. WE'LL
GO TO LINE TWO. OH, SEVEN.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR. YOU'VE BEEN A HUMAN IS ON
BEHALF OF GRACE AND CHILD
POVERTY, CALIFORNIA IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF 18, 28 47. THANK YOU.
DO NOT GO TO LINE 2 17. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME IS WHO'S
WAY MARCUS KARA'S CALLING ON
BEHALF OF RESTAURANT
OPPORTUNITIES CENTER, UM,
CALLING AND BE PART OF THE
SAFETY NET FOR ALL COALITION AND
I'M CALLING TO IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF MAYBE 28 47. THANK YOU. WE'LL
GO TO LINE 2 18, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HELLO THIS IS BRIAN
SANCHEZ WITH THE INLAND
COALITION FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
AS PART OF THE SAFETY NET FOR
ALL CAMPAIGN, I'M AND I'M
CALLING IN WITH STRONG SUPPORT
FOR A B 28 47. WILL NOW GO TO
LINE 2 15, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
STARTED LISTENING NUMBER IS
ROMAN. COLLISION. YOUR CHOCOLATE
AND. HE HANDLE IMMIGRANTS.
TOLEDO'S PRODUCTIONS DON'T
CALIFORNIA. WE'LL GO TO LINE 2
21, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME
IS MARIANA. I'M WITH RUSSIAN
OPPORTUNITY SENTENCE AND CALLING
IT SORT OF TAKING IT FOR ALL
COALITION. I'M CALLING IN
SUPPORT OF THE B 20 AND 47.
THANK YOU. AND IN THE INTEREST
OF TIME I'LL HAND IT BACK OVER
TO HOST. THANK YOU, MODERATOR.
WE DO HAVE TO CONCLUDE
MOMENTARILY, BUT I WANT TO ASKED
IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM THAT WISHES TO
COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. HAVE
SEEN NONE. UM. TO BUT THE TOTAL
CONFERENCE LINE MODERATOR, I'M
NOT SURE IF THERE ARE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES QUEUED UP.
UM BUT IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER
THEM UNTIL AFTER THE RECESS. I
DO NOT SEE ANY AN OPPOSITION
THAT HAVE QUEUED UP MR. CHAIR, I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
VERY MUCH. SENATOR LURED MOVES
THE BILL IF THERE'S NO OTHER
DISCUSSION ON THE BILL WILL GO
AHEAD AND VERY OPPORTUNITY CLOSE
. VERY BRIEFLY. SENATOR NEWMAN.
EVENTUALLY JUST REMEMBER, I JUST
WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON THIS
BILL. THIS IS EMINENTLY
REASONABLE. IN FACT, IT'S HUMANE
. SO APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
THIS INCREDIBLE. ALRIGHT. THANK
YOU. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE
YOU MAKE. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THANK YOU FOR MOVING THE BILL
FORWARD. RECOGNIZE THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AND THE WORKING
CONDITIONS WERE MADE IN TERMS OF
MOVING FORWARD. I SEE THIS BILL
, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN WE COME UP
TO THE LEGISLATURE TO DO THIS
WORK, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY HAVE
TO ASK OURSELVES. WHAT DO WE
WANT TO ACCOMPLISH WHILE WE'RE
HERE? AND ULTIMATELY WHO DO WE
WANT TO BE KNOWN AS REPRESENTING
WHILE WE WERE HERE AND FOR ME?
YOU KNOW THIS IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN HOW
SIGNIFICANT ANY CENTRAL. UM.
IMMIGRANTS IN CALIFORNIA FROM
ALL WALKS OF LIFE HAVE BEEN TO
OUR STATE $3 BILLION IN STATE
AND LOCAL TAXES THAT ARE
COLLECTED. BUT UNFORTUNATELY
WILL NEVER BE RECIPROCATED WHEN
HELP IS NEEDED. THIS BILL DOES
THAT RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
AND WITH THE MOTION BY SENATOR
ALERT, GLYNIS CONSULTANT CALL
THE ROLL. PLEASE NUMBER 14. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS, BUT FIRST
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY. SENATOR CORTEZ E Z.
I, SENATOR KOBO. SENATOR DURAZO
DURAZO. I, SENATOR LAIRD LAIRD.
I SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN I THIS
BILL IS OUT FOR ZERO. THE BILL
IS OUT ON A 4 TO 0 VOTE. THIS
COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS
UNTIL 15 MINUTES AFTER THE
CONCLUSION, OR GERMAN OF THE
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING IN THIS
VERY SAME COMMITTEE ROOM. SEE
YOU, THEN. THANK YOU.
A LENGTHY RECESS, THE LABOR
REPUBLICAN PLOY MINT AND
RETIREMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF
JUNE 22ND 2022. WE GAVE UP OUR
COMMITTEE ROOM. FOR THE RULES
COMMITTEE MEETING FOR A WHILE.
WE ARE BACK HERE AND WE'RE
PICKING UP. UM THE SEQUENCE OF
THE AGENDA OR THE ORDER OF
AGENDA. ITEM EIGHT. UM, WE STILL
HAVE ITEMS. POWER ITEMS. EIGHT.
10 16 AND 17. TO DO FOR TODAY'S
HEARING JUST TO GET EVERYBODY.
MM UP TO SPEED ON WHERE WE LEFT
OFF. AND WITH THAT I KNOW WE
HAVE SOME REMEMBER HOLDING HERE.
TO PRESENT ON A B 16 OH, FOUR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. YOU MAY
PROCEED WHEN READY. OKAY THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERSTODAY
I'M PRESENTING A B 16 OH FOUR A
BILL THAT IDENTIFIES AND REFORMS
PROCESSES THAT HINDER UPWARD
MOBILITY. WHERE PEOPLE OF COLOR
IN THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM THIS
BILL IS IDENTICAL TO A B 105
FROM LAST YEAR, WHICH THIS
COMMITTEE SUPPORTED. MEMBERS AS
YOU MAY RECALL, THE GENESIS OF
THIS BILL IS A CONSEQUENCE OF
SERIES OF LETTERS WRITTEN AND
PUBLISHED IN THE SACRAMENTO BEE
LAST YEAR ON BEHALF OF AFRICAN
AMERICAN EMPLOYEES WORKING ON
ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD,
OUR CALIFORNIA PRISON SYSTEM AND
THE OFFICE OF STATE PUBLISHING.
THE COMMON THEME OF ALL THESE
STORIES IS THAT THERE IS A LACK
OF UPWARD MOBILITY AND INCLUSION
AND OUR CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.
FOR STARTERS, A B 16 OH, FOUR
CALLS FOR DIVERSITY AND ALL
STATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
THAT HAVE VOLUNTEERS.
ADDITIONALLY THE BILL REQUIRES
THAT THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD
ESTABLISHED A PROCESS THAT
INCLUDES DIVERSITY AND BEST
PRACTICES. IN EACH ASPECT OF THE
DESIGN ANNOUNCEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF EXAMINATIONS
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
EMPLOYMENT LIST. MAYBE 16 OH,
FOUR, PROVIDES THE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES. PROVIDES THAT
THE HUMAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES MAY DEVELOP
MODEL UPWARD MOBILITY GOALS TO
INCLUDE RACE, GENDER AND LGBTQ
AS FACTORS TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL
EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS. THIS BILL
REQUIRES A CAL HR SUBMIT WITHIN
ITS ANNUAL WORKFORCE ANALYSIS
AND CENSUS REPORT. ALL OF THE
ADVERSE ACTIONS TAKEN BY
DEPARTMENTS AGAINST EMPLOYEES.
BECAUSE FOR THE REPORT TO
INCLUDE THE TYPE OF ADVERSE
ACTION, ETHNICITY, GENDER AND
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IF AVAILABLE
. THE GOAL IS TO SEE IF THERE
ARE PATTERNS OF DISCRIMINATION
IN THE DEPARTMENT. MAYBE 16 OH,
FOUR CALLS FOR STATE AGENCIES TO
COLLECT AND REPORT DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA USING MORE NUANCED
CATEGORIES OF CALIFORNIANS OF
AFRICAN DESCENT SIMILAR TO THE
DATA COLLECTED FOR CALIFORNIA'S
OF ASIAN DESCENT. THE STATUS
CRITICAL TO ACCURATELY REPORTING
WHO AMONG CALIFORNIANS OF
AFRICAN DESCENT, IS EXPERIENCING
BARRIERS TO UPWARD MOBILITY. THE
LEGISLATURE, THE LEGISLATIVE
BODY SUPPORTED AND GOVERNORS
FROM SIGNED AB 31 21, AUTHORED
BY FORMER ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND
CURRENT SECRETARY OF STATE
DOCTOR SHIRLEY WEBER,
ESTABLISHING THE TASK FORCE TO
STUDY AND DEVELOP REPARATION
PROPOSALS FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS
. A B 16 OH, FOUR GIVESA TASK
FORCE MORE ACCURATE DATA TO
UTILIZE AND ITS DELIBERATIONS.
WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION TO INCLUDE
THE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA. A BUDGET
TRAILER BILL. WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF A B 16 OH,
5 16 OH, FOUR. EMANUEL AMMA FOR
CO FOUNDER, DIRECTOR OF OUTREACH
COALITION OF BLACK EMPLOYEES.
AND CHRIS LAWSON WITH THE
COALITION OF A FOR A JUST AND
EQUITABLE CALIFORNIA WITH THAT,
I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. WHO WOULD
YOU LIKE TO GO FIRST HERE? MR
AMADOR, I WOULD BELIEVE. OKAY MR
HAMMOND, FOR IF YOU WERE ON THE
COASTLINE, YOU MAY PROCEED AS
ONE OF THE LEAD SUPPORT.
WITNESSES WILL HAVE A COUPLE OF
MINUTES. SORRY GREAT. THANK YOU.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. ABILITY
ACTIVATE ANYTHING TO A B SIX AND
FOUR. IS IT PROGRESSIVE? THAT'S
PERFECT PARTY REFORM
ACCOUNTABILITY, TRAINING THAT
TRANSPARENCY. WE ADVOCATE FOR
RACIAL EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND
JUSTICE, IT WISE. FOR
MILLENNIALS, GENERATION X AND
BABY BOOMERS INDIVIDUAL YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE MAJOR FROM 2 TO 30
YEARS AS STATE SERVICES AT THE
SERVICE ESTATE, IT WAS SERVICE.
FOR DOES NOT 16 OUT OF OUR
DIVERSITY. OUR SUCCEED BECAUSE
OF IT. INDEED, WE COMMITTED TO
BUILDING AND ADMINISTRATION
EXPECTS CALIFORNIA'S DIVERSITY
AND ITS GOAL AND IT'S A GOAL. I
HOPE TO ADVANCE AT EVERY LEVEL
OF GOVERNMENT. BUSINESSES AIMING
FROM GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM. THIS
IS THE TIME TO ALIGN OUR WORK
AND TAKE THE REQUIRED ACTING. WE
MUST DEMONSTRATE AN INTENTIONAL
FOCUS TO REDUCE DISPARITIES,
OPPORTUNITIES, EXPERIENCES AND
OUTCOMES FOR ALL RESIDENTS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA THERE SHOULD
EXPRESS THE COMMITMENT TO
ADDRESS HISTORICAL AND CURRENT
MANIFESTATION OF SOCIAL BIAS AND
EXCLUSION, INCLUDING THE WAYS IN
WHICH ALSO ARRANGEMENTS SUCH AS
EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS, THIS
ADVANTAGE, SOME GROUPS AND
LEGITIMATE OTHERS. SO BARNEY HAS
SHOWN ITSELF TO BE THE LEADER OF
NATIONAL CHANGE BY ESTABLISHING
A TASK FORCE TO STUDY AND
DEVELOP REPARATION PROPOSALS FOR
PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT. AN
APPROACH HEALTH IRONY OR DOING
THE PANDEMIC. CALIFORNIA IS THE
MOST CONSCIENTIOUS THING IN THE
COUNTRY WITH PROGRESSIVE STUFF
SUGGESTED STANDARDS. HAVING THE
EXPERIENCE OF APPLIANCE ABOARD
THE COMMISSION CAN TEST
PERSONALLY AS THE CURRENT SYSTEM
FOR STATE COMMISSION AND BOARD
AND LEADERSHIP POSITION DOES NOT
WORK IN ESTABLISHING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE OF
COLOR. EVEN WITH THE LETTER OF
SUPPORT WENT, DIVERSITY HAS BEEN
HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THESE
POSITIONS THEY FALL ON DEAF EARS
AND POINTED REPRESENTATIVES,
SECRETARIES, DIRECTORS AND
LEADERS SELECT INDIVIDUALS WHO
SPIT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR
WHICH MOST OF THE TIME MASTERS
THEIR COLOR PREDOMINANTLY
CAUCASIAN AND NOT DIVERSE
EXPERIENCES, WHICH ALREADY MEETS
QUALIFICATIONS. AS THE VICE
CHAIRS TO COMMISSION BOARDS FOR
THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO. I KNOW
THE BENEFITS OF HAVING DIVERSITY
COMMISSIONED AND BOARD,
ESPECIALLY FOR OUR BLACK,
INDIGENOUS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR.
CONSTITUENTS CAN'T SEE
THEMSELVES BEING REPRESENTED.
THIS CANNOT BE SAID TO STATE
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND
POSITIONS ESTATE DEPARTMENT OUR
CHALLENGE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TO REVIEW THE
DIVERSITY OF APPOINTED POSITIONS
FOR COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND
POSITIONS IN STATE DEPARTMENT.
TAKE ACTION AND MAKE THE
CRITICAL CHANGE DRIVE THE VISION
OF NOT JUST OUR LEADERS. BUT THE
RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA WHERE
EQUITY IS NOT JUST THE HOT TOPIC
OF SOCIETY, BUT ACTUALLY PUTTING
WORDS INTO ACTION. I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS
IN SUPPORT OF VOTING. YES. SO A
B 16 OH, FOUR. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. NEXT LEAD
SUPPORT WITNESS WOULD BE CRYSTAL
LAUNCESTON. MR WATSON, IF YOU'RE
THERE YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SENATOR. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE CHANCE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT FOR A B 16. OH, FOUR,
THE UPWARD MOBILITY ACT OR YOU
IN MAY OF 2022 HAS MENTIONED MY
NAME IS CHRIS LAWSON WITH THE
COALITION FOR JUSTIN. EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA PLEASE FORGIVE ME. IF
THERE'S ANY WIND OR ANY
BACKGROUND NOISE I'M ACTUALLY
CURRENTLY IN IN THE CITY AND
TOWN OF ALLENSWORTH, WHICH IS A
OR AFRICAN AMERICAN TOWN THAT
WAS FOUNDED BY ONE OF MY SOME OF
SOME OF OUR ANCESTORS HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I AM A
CALIFORNIA RESIDENT AND AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN WHO DESCENDS
FROM PERSONS WHO ARE ENSLAVED IN
THE UNITED STATES. AND AS SUCH,
I LIVED WITH THE CURRENT IMPACTS
OF THAT HISTORY, WHICH INCLUDES
BOTH DISCRIMINATION AND
APPOINTMENTS ON STATE BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS, AS WELL AS THE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS. OF
DISCRIMINATORY POLICY CREATED BY
THOSE SAME STATE ENTITIES BEFORE
I GO ANY FURTHER, I'D LIKE TO
SAY HI TO MY MOTHER, TONYA.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, MY MOTHER IS
VERY RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY. MY MOTHER
MAY NOT REMEMBER, BUT SHE ONCE
TOLD ME THAT SHE CHOSE MY NAME
CHRIS. AND THOUGH THAT MY
SIBLINGS BRIAN, ERICA, ANDREW
AND DYLAN, NOT JUST BECAUSE SHE
LIKED THOSE NAMES, BUT IN PART
TO HIDE OUR RACE ON JOB
APPLICATIONS THAT IS, SHE CHOSE
NAMES THAT SHE THOUGHT POTENTIAL
EMPLOYERS COULDN'T EASILY
IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO AN
AFRICAN AMERICAN. NOW THINK
ABOUT THAT. SHE WANTED TO
PROTECT ME AS AN AFRICAN
AMERICAN WHO DESCENDS FROM US
SLAVERY FROM THE CURRENT IMPACTS
OF THAT HISTORY, WHICH INCLUDES
EMPLOYMENT AND APPOINTMENT
DISCRIMINATION, AND SHE HAD
REASON TO BE WORRIED. SHE KNEW
WHAT OUR BEST. MOST RECENT
EVIDENCE TELLS US THAT JOB
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AFRICAN
AMERICANS AS BAD NOW AS IT WAS
BACK WHEN SHE WAS GROWING UP
THAT HALF OF ALL AFRICAN
AMERICANS BORN POOR ARE STILL
POOR BY THE AGE OF 40 AND THEN A
FULL 70% OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
CHILDREN BORN INTO THE MIDDLE
CLASS WILL FALL OUT OF THE
MIDDLE CLASS AS ADULTS. THIS IS
DOWNWARDS MOBILITY, SO SHE
PROTECTED ME. BUT NEVER SHOULD
ANY MOTHER. ANY FAMILY IN OUR
STATE HAD TO MAKE SUCH A CHOICE.
CURRENTLY IT'S THE POLICY OF OUR
STATE THAT THE COMPOSITION OF
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RILEY
RESPECT REFLECTIVE OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC. BY VOTING IN
FAVOR OF THE 2022 A. YOU HAVE A
CHANCE TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT AT
LEAST AS A CONCERN ABOUT THE
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS WELL
AS THE POLICY MADE BY THOSE
ENTITIES, NO ONE HAS TO MAKE THE
SAME CHOICE THAT MY MOTHER MADE.
YOU ALSO HAVE A CHANCE TO DO
SOMETHING PARTICULARLY SPECIAL
AND NECESSARY, INDEED, HISTORIC
AND LONG OVERDUE. YOU SENATORS
HAVE A CHANCE TO MOVE CALIFORNIA
, BECOMING THE FIRST STATE IN
THE NATION TO REQUIRE DATA
COLLECTED AND USED BY STATE
AGENCIES TO BE AGGREGATED BY
ANCESTRY AND BY LINNAEUS,
DIFFERENT BLACK AND AFRICAN
AMERICAN SUBGROUPS SIMILAR TO
WHAT WE DO NOW ÁP OUR BROTHERS
AND SISTERS. THIS WILL BE AN
IMPORTANT AND HISTORIC
IMPROVEMENT IN THE WAY WE
COLLECT DATA ON CALIFORNIA.
BLACK COMMUNITIES. THEY WILL
PROVIDE VALUABLE DATA TO
CALIFORNIA, FIRST IN THE NATION
REPARATION TASK FORCE WHO HAVE
ESTABLISHED THAT AFRICAN
AMERICANS WHO DESCEND FROM US
LEAVING ON THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR
REPARATIONS IN CALIFORNIA, AND
YOU WILL PROVIDE CLARITY AND
DIRECTION AND STATE EFFORTS TO
INCLUSIVE STATE EMPLOYMENT AS
WELL AS POTENTIALLY REQUIREMENTS
ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. TODAY
SENATORS URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR
THE 2022. YOU THE MAN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT? IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISH TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
POSITION ON A B? 16? OH, FOUR.
SO PLEASE COME FORWARD. I SEE.
NO ONE WILL GO TO THE MODERATOR,
MODERATOR, POLICE QUÊ UP ANY
SUPPORT WITNESSES ON A B 16? OH,
FOUR AT THIS TIME. IF YOU HAVE
SUPPORTED THIS MOMENT IN TIME,
PRESS ONE AND ZERO ON YOUR
TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE KILLING
UP ON A MOMENT WHERE WE GATHER
THEIR NAME. I MEAN, THE OTHER
LINE NUMBERS. I'M SORRY.
HMM. YOUR FIRST GO TOO LONG LINE
NUMBER OF 63. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD EVENING, SENATOR NEWMAN
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HOLDEN
WITNESSES AND FELLOW CALLERS. MY
NAME IS RADIO CALLING YOU FROM
DIAMOND BAR. I AM WITH COALITION
FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA AND I'M CALLING IN
STRONG BABY ONCE BEFORE. I ASK
THAT YOU PLEASE VOTE YES. MAKE
IT FOR YOU FOR THE MODERATOR AND
THE OPERATOR AND YOUR TECHNICAL
TESTS ALLOWING US TO
PARTICIPATE. EARTH, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. THIS. SEGMENT THAT
WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW IS FOR NAME.
UM SUPPORT POSITION AFFILIATION,
AND THAT'S IT. COMPLIMENTS. TO
UNLESS YOU WANT TO COMPLIMENT
ONE OF THE CENTERS. WHAT WOULD
YOU LIKE US TO GET THEIR NAME
INSTEAD OF LINE NUMBER? NO NO,
NO MODERATOR IF SOMEBODY GOES
BEYOND NAME AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. WE WOULD JUST ASK YOU
TO CUT THEM OFF AT THAT POINT
AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER.
THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. WE
WILL GO TO LINE 2 62. BEER
BARRELS ON BEHALF OF THE
DIVERSITY AND LEADERSHIP
INSTITUTE AND SUPPORT. WE WILL
GO TO LINE NUMBER 2 65, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING, MRS
JOSIAH WILLIAMS WITH THE
PUBLISHING FROM CALIFORNIA.
AMERICAN REDRESS COALITION,
CALIFORNIA BEING HERE AND STRONG
SUPPORT 15. OKAY, THANK YOU.
PROVEN AH, GO TO THE LINE NUMBER
OF TO 61. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO, SENATORS. MY NAME IS TED
BROWN COALITION FOR EXISTING
ECUADOR, CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF BABY 16. OH, FOUR.
PLEASE VOTE GUESTS. THANK YOU.
MHM GO TO LINE 2 48 GO AHEAD.
THIS IS MARCUS CHAMPIONS
COALITION FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE
CALIFORNIA AND THE NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY OF AMERICAN SLAVERY AS
SOON AS LOS ANGELES AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF A B 16 OH, FOUR.
THANK YOU. IN LAST GOOGLE TO
LINE 2 67, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI
MY NAME IS MRS INGA AGGRESSIVE,
WHICH THE COALITION FOR JUST A
LITTLE CALIFORNIA STRONG SUPPORT
OF A B 16. OH, FOUR. YES. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL
WE'RE GOING TO NOW TAKE THE
OPPOSITION SIDE AND THAT WOULD
BE, UM ANDREW QUINDIO. CANEEL OR
QUINDIO APOLOGIZE. YOU CAN SELF
IDENTIFY AND TEACH US HOW TO
PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME PROPERLY. IN
YOUR HEARING PERSON. GREAT.
THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU
, CHAIRMAN CORTESI, HONORABLE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE VERY
CLOSE TO THE PRONUNCIATION. IT'S
ANDREW KEENE. YO, I AM AN
ATTORNEY WITH THE PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION, OR PLF IS THE
LEADING PUBLIC INTERESTS LEGAL
FOUNDATION THAT'S DEDICATED TO
THE ADVOCACY OF EQUALITY AND
OPPORTUNITY. PLF IS HERE TODAY
TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION
CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS IN THE
BILL BEFORE YOU SPECIFICALLY THE
ENACTMENT OF A QUOTA FROM A B 16
OH, FOUR ON STATE BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS. BASED ON SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND RACE UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA AND UNITED STATES,
CONSTITUTIONS, SUCH QUOTAS OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
IMPERMISSIBLE. OUR CONSTITUTIONS
REQUIRE THAT WE BE TREATED
EQUALLY BEFORE THE LAW THAT
MEANS NO INDIVIDUAL CAN BE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY BASED ON
THEIR RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
GENDER OR OTHER PROTECTED
CATEGORIES. THE SAME REMAINS
TRUE FOR WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
DECIDES HOW AND WHEN INDIVIDUALS
HAVE THE HONOR OF SERVING ON THE
STATE BOARD COMMISSIONED THE
BILL BEFORE YOU AMENDS
GOVERNMENT CODE TO REQUIRE STATE
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE
AT LEAST ONE VOLUNTEER MEMBER TO
A POINT AT MINIMUM ONE
INDIVIDUAL FROM A
UNDERREPRESENTED COMMUNITY. THE
DEFINITION, THE INCLUDED IN THAT
DEFINITION OF AN
UNDERREPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS ARE
INDIVIDUALS WHO IDENTIFY AS
CERTAIN RACES OR INDIVIDUALS
THAT SELF IDENTIFY AS LESBIAN,
GAY, TRANSGENDER OR BISEXUAL.
NEVER CALL THE PREVIOUS VERSION
OF THIS BILL. MAYBE 105 WAS
VETOED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM
BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CITED WERE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICTS. I
DON'T BELIEVE THOSE CONFLICTS
HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT IN THIS
CURRENT VERSION OF THE BILL ALSO
RECALL THAT OTHER VERSIONS OR
OTHER BILLS THAT ENACTED QUOTAS
, GENDER QUOTAS IN PARTICULAR.
SB 26 89 79 WERE BOTH STRESS
STRICKEN BY THE COURT AGAIN
BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DEFECTS IN ENACTING THOSE
QUOTAS. THOSE SAME
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES EXIST
HERE. NOW WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE
REASONS OF THIS BILL. AND WHAT
PROMPTED THIS BILL IS IN
PARTICULAR THE APPARENT
DISPARITY IN ADVANCEMENT TO
MANAGEMENT POSITIONS BETWEEN
WHITE AND NONWHITE CIVIL
SERVANTS. THOSE DISPARITIES
CERTAINLY SHOULD BE STUDIED AND
LOOKED AT, BUT AT THIS POINT,
IT'S INSUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND
STRICT SCRUTINY TO JUSTIFY A
RECENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION QUOTA.
NOTABLY THE LETTER BY THE
EMPLOYEES FROM THE AREA SOURCES
BOARD WHO BROUGHT UP A LOT OF
THESE DISPARITIES THAT PROMPTED
THIS LEGISLATION. THEY ACTUALLY
SUGGESTED, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
SEVERAL RACE NEUTRAL SUGGESTIONS
TO FIX THOSE DISPARITIES OR AT
LEAST ADDRESS THOSE DISPARITIES.
CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES
AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR
BASIC MORAL BELIEF IN EQUALITY
BEFORE THE LAW AND EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY. THESE QUOTAS SHOULD
NOT BE ENACTED. INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO A
STATE BORDER COMMISSION. DESERVE
EQUAL, INDIVIDUALIZED
CONSIDERATION TO APPOINTMENT TO
THE BOARD. OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL
MEANS OPPORTUNITY THAT ALL ARE
ALLOWED TO SEEK EQUALLY. TO VIEW
OUR HARD WORKING CIVIL SERVANTS
IN TERMS OF WHETHER THEY FIT ONE
RACIAL BOX OR ANOTHER BETRAYS
OUR COMMITMENT TO THAT. EQUALITY
AND QUOTA FURTHERS THAT
BETRAYAL. WE URGE YOU TO, UH,
NOT ENACT THE QUOTA IN A B 16 OH
FOUR AND VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL
AND WORK ON POLICY SOLUTIONS
THAT ADVANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS. I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND I WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. VERY THANK YOU IS LEAD
OPPOSITION WITNESS WHEN YIN WU
ON THE COASTLINE. WE UNDERSTAND
SHE MAY NOT BE BUT HIS LISTED AS
AN OPPOSITION WITNESS APPEARS
THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THAT
OPPOSITION WITNESS AVAILABLE AT
THIS TIME, SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK
. THERE'S ANYONE ELSE IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM WHO WISHES TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
MAYBE. 16 OH, FOUR. SEE NO ONE.
COME FORWARD. MODERATOR WOULD
YOU PLEASE CHECK THE
TELECONFERENCE ALIGNED FOR
OPPOSITION WITNESSES AT THIS
TIME. IF YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE.
OPPOSITION AT THIS MOMENT, PRESS
ONE AND ZERO ON YOUR TELEPHONE
KEYPAD. WE HAVE LINES TO 70.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 9270 YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. HELLO. YES. PLEASE
PROCEED. WE CAN HEAR YOU. OH,
SORRY ABOUT THAT, MR CHAIR. I
WAS IN THE WRONG QUÊ. THIS IS
GREGORY CRAMER ON BEHALF OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
WE'RE ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF
THIS MEASURE. OKAY THAT THAT'S
ALL YOU CAN SAY. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. WILL GO ON TO THE
NEXT COLOR. THE DEVIL. WE HAVE
ONE PERSON QUEUING UP
PROPOSITION ONE MOMENT WHERE WE
GATHER THEIR LINE NUMBER. AND
THAT WILL BE FROM LINE NUMBER. 2
69, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HELLO. YES
WE'RE HERE, WHICH IS DANIEL
CHERYL LEGISLATIVE ON THE KID S
C I U LOCAL 1000. AND AS OPPOSED
TO MOST AMENDED CONSTITUTIONAL
CONCERNS AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL
PRIVACY CONCERNS. THE RECORDING
, THAT'S ALL YOU'RE ALLOWED TO
SAY ON THIS ONE. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE MODERATE. WE HAVE
NOBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. ALL
RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR
CHECKING. WE WILL NOW BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS CONCERNS.
WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION WILL
GO AHEAD AND NOTE THAT SENATOR
ROSEAU IS PREPARED TO MOVE THE
BILL IN ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S YOU'RE
ALLOWED TO CAUSE AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. LET ME
JUST SAY THAT I THINK ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE WERE PAIGE. GREAT
CARE, TOO, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT THIS BILL DID NOT HAVE ANY
ASPECTS OF IT THAT WERE IN
CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW UNDER
PROP. TWO OH NINE, BUT WE ALSO
IN REPRESENTING THAT THERE BE
DIVERSITY ON STATE BOARDS. THERE
WOULD BE VOLUNTEER. PORTS AND WE
WERE ABLE TO GET CLARITY FROM
ALLEGED COUNCIL THAT THAT WAS
THAT THAT WOULD NOT CROSS ANY
LINES. AND SO I THINK THAT WE'VE
DONE WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE AREAS OF
CONCERN WERE PROPERLY ADDRESSED.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SOME
MEMBER AND AGAIN WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR DURAZO. UNLESS
CONSULTING TO CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT
BABY. FILE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT A.
B 16 OH, FOUR. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS, BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATION, SENATOR CORTEZ
CORTEZ EI SENATOR KOA BOGUE.
SENATOR DURAZO DURAZO. I,
SENATOR LAIRD LAYERED I SENATOR
NEWMAN NEWMAN. I BILL IS OUT FOR
2016. OH, FOUR IS OUT FOR 20.
AND I DO WANT TO EXPRESS
GRATITUDE TO ALL THE WITNESSES
SUPPORTING OPPOSITION. THAT
PRESENTED HERE TODAY. THANK YOU.
WE WILL. MOVE ON.
ITEM 10. MAYBE 2045
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S JOHN SAWYER
SAID. COME IN. PLEASE COME ON
UP, AND HE MAY PROCEED. WHEN
READY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. UM I'M
HERE TO PRETEND A B 2045, WHICH
PROVIDES LOCAL EDUCATION
AGENCIES LIAISE AND OPTIONAL
OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE HIRING
TOOLS TO ADDRESS CLASSIFIED
STAFF SHORTAGES SINCE 1975,
CALIFORNIA ELIA'S HAVE USED THE
RULE OF 33 RANKS TO HIRE
CANDIDATES SEPARATING CANDIDATE
SCORES FROM THE EXAMINATION
PROCESS BY 1% AND ONLY ALLOWING
THE TOP THREE SCORES TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR EMPLOYMENT.
VOLUNTEERING TO PREVENT NEPOTISM-OR BIAS AND HIRING THE RURAL
THREE RANKS HAS ITS OWN SET OF
CHALLENGES. THE NARROW 1%
DISTINCTION BETWEEN RANKS LIMITS
THE ABILITY TO CONSIDER WELL
QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO MAY
EXCEL IN OTHER JOB RELATED
FACTORS AND SECURE HIGH TEST
SCORES. BUT DO NOT LAND WITHIN
THE TOP THREE RANKS. A B 2045
WILL ALLOW FOR AN UPDATED HIRING
METHOD WHERE ELIA'S CAN OPT INTO
ABANDONED SYSTEM THAT WOULD
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
CANDIDATES CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR
HIRING. UNDER THIS BILL, A
PERSON PERSONNEL COMMISSION
WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER TO SHIFT
TO ABANDON THIS FEASIBLE.
EMPLOYEES WOULD CONFIRM THE
CHANGE WITH THE MAJORITY VOTE.
IF ENACTED, A B 2045 WILL HELP
COMBAT THE LACK OF ADEQUATE
REPRESENTATION HELPED ALLEVIATE
SHORT STAFF SHORTAGES, IMPACTING
OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND TAKE
ANOTHER STEP TOWARDS TRUE
EQUALITY IN ELIA'S AND COMMUNITY
COLLEGES ACROSS OUR STATE. I
WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT I'M
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO DO TO
ADDRESS THE REMAINING CONCERNS
JOINING ME TODAY AND TO TESTIFY
AND SUPPORT VIA PHONE IS ERICK
ROWAN WITH THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
PERSONAL COMMISSION. AND MICHAEL
HENRY WITH THE LOS ANGELES
OFFICE OF EDUCATION. ALL RIGHT,
SO WE ASKED FOR MY VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS
THIS MR ROWAN? NO, THIS THIS
HENRY. MR HENRY, GO AHEAD AND
PROCEED. AND THEN WE'LL TAKE MR
ROHAN AFTER YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS MIKE HENRY. I AM A PERSONNEL
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION AND PROBABLY KNOWN AS
THE LATE H|ND AS THE
ORGANIZATION WE ARE IN TOTAL
SUPPORT OF A B 2040 POTS. THIS
LEGISLATION IS LONG OVERDUE AND
WILL SERVE THE BENEFIT EMPLOYEES
, MANAGERS AND ADMINISTRATION
ART WHO JUST PLAN. QUALITY,
CURRENTLY A PERSONNEL COMMISSION
WITH LATENT MY TESTIMONY WILL
CENTER AROUND MY PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE WITH BANDING DOING MY
32 YEAR CAREER WITH THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES. WHY IN A VARIETY
OF POSITIONS FROM AN INITIAL
INTERNSHIP. TWO DEPARTMENT IS OF
THE COUNTY'S HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT. I AM A CAPTAIN
AMERICAN DESCENT. AND ONE OF THE
FEW DEPARTMENT IS THAT WERE
AFRICAN AMERICAN. AND TODAY
THERE ARE MANY MORE IN L. A
COUNTY. I SERVED AS THE
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR FOR ABOUT 14
YEARS AND RETIRED FROM THAT
POSITION IN 2000 AND NINE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY USED BANDING
STARTING IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES.
AROUND THE SAME TIME THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED THIS
PROCESS AS A MEANS OF GIVING
THEIR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS
MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE HIRING
PATH PROCESS. DURING MY TENURE
IN LOST ENGINE COUNTY. AS AN
EMPLOYEE AND A MANAGER. BOTH
EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS EMBRACE
THIS PROCESS. WHICH CONTINUES
TODAY. I PERSONALLY DO MY 32
YEAR CAREER WITH THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES PARTICIPATED AS A
CANDIDATE IN MANY OF SAM'S UNDER
BANDING AND COMPARED TO THE RULE
OF THREE STANDING WAS MORE
EFFICIENT AND SAY MAYBE 2045
WILL GIVE US A LOT OF BENEFITS.
A LARGER SELECTION PULLED UP
CANDIDATES TO BE INTERVIEWED.
UH, RATHER THAN THE RULE OF
THREE IT'S LEFT WOULD BE LESS
RESTRICTIVE THAN THE RULE OF
THREE. AT OVER TIME. IT APPEARS
THAT STANDING PROVIDE GREATER
DIVERSITY AND YOU CAN LOOK AT
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN L. A COUNTY
OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS, WE NOW
HAVE MANY DEPARTMENT HAS THE
MANAGERS. OF COLLEGE. THIS BILL
DOESN'T MANDATE BANDING. IT IS
THEREFORE ALLOWS WHO JUST TO
DECIDE WHAT THEY FEEL IS RIGHT
FOR THEIR ORGANIZATION. IT ALSO
IT IS A PROCESS. THAT'S NOT
PERFECT. THERE IS NO PERFECT
PROCESS. BUT THERE IS IN STATE
STATUTE. AH AND WITHIN THE
AUTHORITY OF THE PERSONNEL
COMMISSION. BE ABILITY FOR
EMPLOYEES TO FOUL. UH,
LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT. AND GET
THAT. REVIEWED BY A. 72 BODY. MR
ROHAN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO WRAP
UP YOUR OVER THREE MINUTES AND
IT'S A TWO MINUTE LIMIT. OKAY,
UM. I BASICALLY KNEE. UM WE'LL
WRAP WRAP UP BY SAYING THAT
MAYBE 2045 SHOULD BE. WE SUPPORT
AND IT SHOULD BE APPROVED AND IT
WILL HELP IN A LOT OF WAYS.
SPECIALLY INTO THEIR DIVERSITY.
APPRECIATE TESTIMONY. APPRECIATE
TESTIMONY, AND I'M SORRY, I KNOW
GOES VERY QUALITY MINUTES GOES
VERY QUICKLY AND WE'LL MOVE ON.
OKAY WE'LL MOVE ON TO MICHAEL.
HENRY, IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE ON
THE COASTLINE, YOU MAY PROCEED.
STEP HOWARD GAVE MY TESTIMONY.
ERIC IT'S NO ERIC, I'M SORRY.
STORIES GOOD AFTERNOON COMMITTEE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
THEIR GROWING IN 90, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CLASSIFIED HUMAN
RESOURCES AT THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY EDUCATION. ORGANIZATION
IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY
BILL 2045, WHICH WILL PROVIDE A
THROUGH 12 AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT WITH AN OPTION TO MAKE
PARENT BASED HIRING DECISIONS
FROM RANKED GROUPS OF HIGHLY
QUALIFIED ABSENCE. RATHER THAN
THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT
MINISTERS DECISIONS TO ONLY THE
TOP THREE RANGE ON AN
ELIGIBILITY LIST. AS DETERMINED
BY AN INEXACT PRESENT DIFFERENT
IN SCORES. AND OUR PERSONAL
COMMISSION WAS PROMPTED BY THE
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
TO RE EXAMINE ANY EXISTING LAWS
AND SYSTEMS THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE
TO ADVERSE IMPACT IN OUR HIRING
PRACTICES. SPENDING PROPOSAL WAS
CLEAR AND UNANIMOUS CHOICE.
PROMOTE EQUITY IN MERIT SYSTEM
HIRING. THREE COMMISSIONERS WITH
HER DECADES OF HUMAN RESOURCES
LEADERSHIP BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, US, STEVE AND LIKE
OH, ALL AGREED THAT THIS
RESULTING BILL IS A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A BANDING
OPTION IN THE MERIT SYSTEM. AS
HAD BEEN THE STANDARD PRACTICE
IN MANY CITIES, STATE AND
FEDERAL SERVICE SYSTEMS FOR
DECADES. SPECIFICALLY THE SYSTEM
OUTLINING A B 2045 HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY IN PLACE AT THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EARLY 19
EIGHTIES. IT'S PASSED. THIS BILL
WILL ALLOW DISTRICTS THE LOCAL
CONTROL TO OPT INTO A WALLET
THAT WAS PRACTICE THAT WILL
PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR
EQUITABLE HIRING. INCREASE
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
QUALIFIED JOB. AFRICAN TO MAKE
THE HIRING PROCESS MORE
EFFICIENT TO FILL THOSE
ESSENTIAL JOB SUPPORT CHILDHOOD
ADULT EDUCATION ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND ACTUALLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL
2045. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. WE'RE GOING TO
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM
AND ASK ANYONE WHO WISHES TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL TO
COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
WELCOME. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR, AND
SENATORS PAMELA GIBBS,
REPRESENTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION SPONSORS OF THIS
BILL, AND WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
I'M ALSO AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENTS EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES ASSOCIATION OR
SUCCESSOR WHO ALSO WISH TO
EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL. THANK YOU. OKAY THANK YOU
FOR COMING FORWARD ANYBODY ELSE
IN THE ROOM ON TO COME FORWARD
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT SEEN NONE.
MODERATOR WOULD YOU PLEASE CHECK
THE COASTLINE FOR SUPPORT
WITNESSES ON A B 2045? THANK
YOU.
MODERATOR, ARE YOU THERE? YES I
AM HERE. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE
KILLING UP. WE GOTTA GET TO
THEIR LINE NUMBERS. CAN WE APPLY
NUMBER? 2 75, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. REMEMBER
CHRIS REEF ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. ME AND
TO OTHERS JUST WAITING. CLEAR
LINE NUMBERS.
DI NUMBER 2 58, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS
DOROTHY JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF
ACTS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE.
AND WE'LL GO TO LINE 2 66 GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON SHARING
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KENNETH
COTTO OF THE PERSONNEL
COMMISSION OF THE LONG BEACH
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WE
SUPPORT 80 20 0 25 2045. AND WE
HAVE NOBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE.
OKAY THANK YOU, MODERATOR. WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE NOW TO LEAD
OPPOSITION. CASSIE. MAN SEANIE
IS WHO I HAVE LISTED AND SHE IS
HERE. WELCOME YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR MR
SHARON. SENATOR IS MY NAME IS
CASSIE MANCINI AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. FIRST, WE WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE
AUTHOR, THE SPONSORS AND THE
STAFF TO ADDRESS MANY OF THESE
CONCERNS AND PRIOR AMENDMENTS TO
THIS BILL AND ALSO RECOGNIZE
THAT WE SUBMITTED OUR LETTER
VERY LATE. OUR MEMBERS ARE
DEEPLY PROTECTIVE OF THE MERIT
SYSTEM AND RIGHTFULLY SO. THEY
CIRCULATED PETITIONS, THEN VOTED
IN AN ELECTION TO INSTITUTE
MERIT SYSTEMS AT THEIR DISTRICTS
OUT OF DEEP CONCERN FOR A FAIR
HIRING AND PROMOTION PRACTICES.
AND THESE CONCERNS ARE WELL
FOUNDED. JUST THIS YEAR, ONE
DISTRICT UNLAWFULLY USED BANDING
RATHER THAN THE RULE OF THREE
RANKS TO HIRE A CANDIDATE WHO IS
THE SPOUSE OF THE DISTRICT
SUPERINTENDENTS, NIECE. OUR
MEMBERS FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT ANY
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO HOW THE
MERIT SYSTEM WORKS MUST BE
INITIATED AND AGREED UPON BY THE
CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES EXCLUSIVELY
NOT THE PERSONNEL COMMISSIONERS
CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING THE
SYSTEM. ACCORDINGLY SEEKS TO IS
REQUESTING THREE AMENDMENTS.
FIRST OF THE SWITCH TO BENDY AND
BE INITIATED BY A PETITION OF
THE CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES NOT TO
VOTE OF THE PERSONNEL
COMMISSIONERS SECOND THAT THE
PROCEDURES BY WHICH AN ELECTED
AN ELECTION TO ADOPT BENDING IS
CONDUCTED. MATCH THOSE
PROCEDURES ALREADY OUTLINED IN
CURRENT LAW, INCLUDING THAT THE
PROCEDURES ARE SUBJECT TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THEIR
VOTE TO REFER REVERT BACK TO THE
RULE OF THREE RANKS MAY ALSO BE
INITIATED BY PETITION OF THE
CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES. PUT SIMPLY
CSC A ASKED THAT A B 2045 POWER
THE CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES TO NOT
ONLY VOTE ON BENDING BUT ALSO TO
BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
INITIATING THE SWITCH TO BENDING
IF SO DESIRED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISHES TO STEP UP AND
EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE BILL?
SEE NONE. MODERATOR ON A B 2045
. COULD YOU PLEASE QUEUE UP ANY
OPPOSITION? THANK YOU. IF YOU
HAVE OPPOSITION PRESS 10, I CAN
TELEPHONE KEYPAD AT THIS MOMENT.
AND WE HAVE NO OPPOSITION. OKAY
THANK YOU FOR CHECKING WILL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR CHAIR. QUESTIONS ARE YES.
CENTER ALERT. THANK YOU HAVE A
COMMENT AND I THINK ACTION IN IN. MHM ADDRESS. SICK TIME IN MY
CAREER, UH, GRAPPLED WITH THIS
CHAIRED A WORKING GROUP. BECAUSE
WE HAD A PROBLEM IN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT TO SELECT 19
SEVENTIES WHERE WE HAD A ROLE OF
THREE AND WE HAD VETERANS
PREFERENCE AND VETERANS WERE NOT
VERY DIVERSE AND WHAT IT MEANT
WAS AT A TIME THAT WE WERE
TRYING TO DIVERSIFY THE
WORKFORCE AND HAVE IT LOOK MORE
LIKE OUR COMMUNITY. WE WERE
GETTING THREE WHITE MEN, WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, MEN. WE WERE
GETTING THREE WHITE MEN AS THE
ONLY CHOICE AS THE ONLY CHOICE
AND IT WAS VERY LIMITING. AND SO
WE MOVED TO ASSIST. UM THAT THAT
WAS WHAT WE REFERRED TO AS A
MODIFIED RULE OF TEND AND YOU
WOULD GET THE TOP 10. BUT THE
RULE WAS YOU HAD TO INTERVIEW
EVERYBODY ABOVE WHO YOU EVER
MADE A JOB OFFER TO AND SO IT
DIDN'T SCREEN OUT THE VETERANS.
THEY WERE THERE THEY WERE
PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT
THEIR PREFERENCE, AND THEY GOT
NEAR THE TOP OF THE LIST, AND
MANY OF THEM WERE HIRED. BUT YOU
COULD REACH BROADER IN THAT CASE
, THERE WAS A REAL LACK OF
CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE OF
COLOR, BUT A REAL LACK OF WOMEN
AND IT WAS A WAY TO REACH AND
DIVERSIFY. AND SO THIS BILL.
DOES THAT? AND ONE THING. I
CAN'T RECALL A TIME THAT I HAVE
DISAGREED. VERY SUBSTANTIALLY
WITH WITH CSC, A BUT WE SHOULD
NOT BE SUBMITTING A VOTE ON
DIVERSITY TO THE TO THE
EMPLOYEES TO DECIDE WHAT IF THEY
VOTE AGAINST DIVERSITY. WE ARE
TRYING TO MOVE TO THAT, AND THAT
SHOULD NOT BE PUT TO A VOTE. WE
SHOULD IF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND
THE TOP LEADERSHIP DECIDE THAT
THEY WANT TO PERSONNEL SYSTEM
THAT DIVERSIFIES THE IMPORTANT
EMPLOYEES. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO MAKE THAT POLICY AND THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADMINISTERED
IN A FLEXIBLE WAY THAT ALLOWS
FOR THAT DIVERSITY TO SHOW UP IN
APPOINTMENT, SO UM, IF THERE ARE
STILL SOME ISSUES WITH BENDING
OR THE BILLS IN THE BILL, OR
WHATEVER I ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP
WORKING ON IT, BUT I THINK THIS
IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND IT
IMPRESSES ME THE SUPPORT SO I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AND SENATOR NEWMAN.
THANK YOU. MR I ACTUALLY MEAN
YOU'VE RAISED YOUR QUESTION,
SENATOR LARRY, I WANT TO GIVE
THIS MAN SENIOR CHANCE TO
RESPOND BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING
YOUR INTENT IS NOT TO MAKE
DIVERSITY LESS LIKELY. SO IF YOU
COULD PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR
YOUR OPPOSITION YEAH, ABSOLUTELY
. AND I THINK THAT WE HAD TO
WOULD ARGUE THAT ARE CLASSIFIED
EMPLOYEES ARE SOME OF THE MOST
DIVERSE WORKERS AND SCHOOL AND
MAJORITY OF OUR MEMBERS ARE
WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR AND WE
HAVE COURSE, DON'T DISAGREE WITH
THE AUTHOR'S INTENT TO ENSURE
DIVERSITY. I THINK OUR MEMBERS
JUST HAVE A VERY DEEP, SEATED
AND WELL FOUNDED CONCERN ABOUT
GIVING MANAGEMENT MORE
DISCRETION IN HIRING. AND OF
COURSE, WE KNOW THAT THOUGH SOME
DISTRICTS LIKE LEKO HAVE
OBVIOUSLY THE BEST INTENTIONS
WITH THIS RESPECT, THERE IS
NOTHING PREVENTING OTHER
DISTRICTS FROM PERHAPS NOT USING
IT TO DIVERSIFY THEIR WORKFORCE.
I APPRECIATE THAT. SO THANK YOU
FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK
YOU, MR LET ME JUST ASK THE
AUTHOR IF THERE'S ANY INTENTION
TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH CSKA, I
THINK THEY ACKNOWLEDGED HAS BEEN
SENIOR ACKNOWLEDGED THE
LIGHTNESS OF HER NOTIFICATION TO
THIS COMMITTEE THAT THEY HAD
CONCERNS WHICH SOUND LIKE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. ORDINARILY,
AS YOU KNOW, WE WOULD GRAPPLE
WITH THOSE COMMITTEE STAFF WOULD
WOULD TRY TO WORK WITH THOSE AND
SEE. WHAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE
DONE AND WORK WITH YOU, OF
COURSE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT
OPPORTUNITY, I JUST THOUGHT
WOULD BE COMPELLING. QUESTION TO
ASK YOU IF YOU'RE WILLING TO
TAKE UP THEIR CONCERNS GOING
FORWARD, AND I, YOU'RE RIGHT. I
JUST GOT THE LETTER. ON
AMENDMENT ONE IN THREE, UM IT
WOULD NULLIFY THE PERSONNEL
COMMISSIONS ROLLING IT AND WE
REALLY NEED TO MAYBE COME TO A
COMPROMISE. THERE MIGHT BE A
MIDDLE GROUND. I'M WILLING AND
ABLE, AND I HAVE SOME GREAT
STAFF THAT WILL BE ABLE TO WORK
THROUGH THAT. I'M ALSO SENSITIVE
TO THE CONCERN ABOUT NEPOTISM.
WOW. SPECIALLY IN. CIVIL
SERVICE. I CAME UP UNDER RULE OF
THREE WHOLE SCORES FOR THE CITY
OF L. A. I WAS ABLE TO RETIRE
THE HIGHEST RANKING CIVIL
SERVANTS IN THE SYSTEM BECAUSE
OF THE THREE RULE OF THREE WHOLE
SCORES, AND I APPRECIATE ONE OF
THOSE DINOSAURS. THAT GO BACK TO
THAT TIME WHERE THERE WERE
PEOPLE WHO WERE TRYING TO JUMP
PEOPLE OVER ME BECAUSE THEY HAD
AVORITES OR THEY WERE OF A
LIGHTER HUE THAN I WAS AND
BECAUSE OF, UH, THE CIVIL LOS
ANGELES BECAUSE AT THAT TIME WE
HAD AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MAYOR
HAD AN AFRICAN AMERICAN GENERAL
MANAGER. THEY KIND OF PUT STOP
TO A LOT OF THAT AND WAS
ALLOWING ME TO GROW. UM AND
ULTIMATELY RETIRED FROM THE CITY
OF L. A. AH SO I'M VERY
SENSITIVE TO PEOPLE DOING THINGS
THAT ARE NOT IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY. IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF MAKING
SURE WE GET THE BEST QUALIFIED
PEOPLE IN PLACE TO DO, UM
TAXPAYERS WORK AND SO I
DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE. I AM
REALLY, YOU KNOW THE THING ABOUT
BRINGING IN PEOPLE FOR THE WRONG
REASONS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
DON'T OPEN UP THAT THAT GAP TO
ALLOW THAT I'M WILLING TO WORK
WITH THEM ON THAT. APPRECIATE
THAT, AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW
FROM OUR EXPERIENCE, AND IF YOU
LISTEN TO THEM, I THINK THEY'RE
OKAY WITH THE ACTUAL WHAT WE
WANT TO DO. THIS IS HOW WE'RE
GOING TO DO IT. HE SOUNDS IT
SOUNDS LIKE IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT.
I JUST SAY I KNOW THAT THEY ALSO
HAVE VERY QUALIFIED FOLKS HERE
THAT CAN MOVE QUICKLY ON ON
WORDS MANSHIP AND WORDSMITHING
LANGUAGE AROUND LEGAL ISSUES. SO
I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD SAY THAT
YOU'RE WILLING TO HAVE YOUR TOP
NOTCH STYLE PEOPLE WORK WITH
THEIRSAND TRY TO TRY TO MOVE A
SOLUTION FORWARD WHERE YOU CAN.
AND WITH THAT, I KNOW WE HAD
QUESTIONS, SENATOR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. JUST A
QUESTION, BECAUSE, UM, I WAS, AS
WAS SAID BY THE REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CSC A. THEY AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THIS IS THE SAME ACROSS
THE BOARD AND EVERY AND EVERY,
UM LOCATION, BUT, UM, HAVE A
DIVERSE. YOU KNOW, MEMBERSHIP
WORK WORKFORCE. I'M NOT SURE
WHAT WE'RE TRYING. YOU KNOW
WHERE IS THEIR POCKETS OR THERE.
PARTICULAR PLACES ANYWAY. I
THINK GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE
NITTY GRITTY AND TO YOU KNOW
WHERE THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE. UM
COULD BE PART OF THE
CONVERSATION. UM AND YOU KNOW
THAT THE WHICHEVER SYSTEM THAT'S
USED. IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING
THAT GIVES PEOPLE THE CONFIDENCE
YOU KNOW, IN THE SYSTEM. THEY'VE
GOT TO BE ABLE TO TRUST THE
SYSTEM. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. BUT ANYWAY,
I JUST THINK SOMETIMES THE
GETTING INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE
THAN NITTY GRITTY WHERE THE
PROBLEM IS, AND YOU KNOW, WITH
WHOM AND ALL OF THAT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL. I WOULD APPRECIATE
OBVIOUSLY, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
DO IS TO SIT DOWN SOME MORE WITH
CSKA LOUD AND CLEAR. AND I DON'T
REMEMBER WHICH ONE OF YOU
OFFERED EMOTION. IT WAS CENTRAL
. OKAY, SO WE WILL ASK. THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT BEFORE WE
ASKED HER TO CALL THE ROLL. LET
ME GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE. HAVE YOU BEEN I HAD A
COUPLE OF OPPORTUNITY ANSWER
QUESTIONS, BUT ANYTHING MORE YOU
WANT TO SEE THAT? THAT'S IT.
THEN I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU.
I VOTE. THANK YOU AND BACK TO
THE CONSULTANT. COLORADO POLICE
ON SENATOR GUARDS MOTION. FILE
FILE ITEM NUMBER 10 A B 2045.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS, BUT
FIRST REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION, SENATOR CORTEZ E
G. I, SENATOR CO BOGUE SENATOR
DURAZO HAS OI, SENATOR LAIRD
LAIRD. I SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN,
I SPILL IS OUT WITH FOUR VOTES.
ALRIGHT, THE BILLS OUT. 40
COMMITTEE. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE
TODAY IS FOR SO LUCKY DAY. THANK
YOU, AND WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON
TO A B 28 48, WHICH ARE FILE
NUMBER 16. AND THAT IS THE
SANTIAGO BILL AND I BELIEVE OH,
NO, NO. YES SENATOR ROSSI,
YOU'RE HERE FOR THE DURATION SO
WELL, HOWEVER, IF WE TAKE IT OUT
OF ORDER AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
COME ON UP. I THINK SHE'S HERE
FOR THE DURATION OF YOUR NEW
NICKNAME, SENATOR TO REDUCE LIKE
IT. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. RIGHT?
THAT WAS THE POINT. THAT WAS THE
POINT. THAT WAS THAT WAS THAT
WAS THE POINT. SO JUST TO BE
CLEAR FOR LISTENERS AND WATERS
AND ALL THAT WE'RE ON A B 28 49
, WHICH IS OUR FILE NUMBER 17.
AND THIS IS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA AND SHE IS HERE SHE IS
HERE TO PRESENT AND YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS A B 28 49 THE PROMOTE
OWNERSHIP BY WORKERS FOR
ECONOMIC RECOVERY OR THE POWER
ACT ESTABLISHED THE ASSOCIATION
OF COOPERATIVE LABOR CONTRACTORS
TO PROMOTE EQUITABLE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT. PRODUCE INEQUALITY
AND CREATE SUSTAINABLE PATHWAYS
TO LIVING WAGE. THAT JOBS
THROUGH WORKER OWNED
COOPERATIVES. MAYBE 28 49 SEEKS
TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BY
REDUCING BARRIERS FOR WORKER CO
OPS BY ESTABLISHING A VOLUNTEER
, VOLUNTARY MEMBER BASED MUTUAL
BENEFIT CORPORATION TO ASSIST
AND THEIR FORMATION AND
OPERATION. THE ASSOCIATION OF
COOPERATIVE LABOR CONTRACTORS
WILL SERVE AS A WORKER DIRECTED
RESOURCE FOR TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND ALLOW FOR
ECONOMIES OF SCALE FOR PAYROLL
AND OTHER TYPICAL EMPLOYER
FUNCTIONS. MEMBERS OF THE
ASSOCIATION ELECTED TO MEET HIGH
MINIMUM LABOR STANDARDS ON WAGES
, PAY TRANSPARENCY, RETIREMENT
SAVINGS, HEALTHCARE AND OTHER
BENEFITS IN EXCHANGE FOR JOINT
EMPLOYMENT RELIEF. AS A UNEVEN
ECONOMIC RECOVERY CONTINUES. A B
28 49 GIVES WORKERS THE POWER TO
TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THEIR FUTURE
AND PROVIDE FOR A MORE INCLUSIVE
PROSPERITY THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. AND AS
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE
MET LADY JAYE WITH CALIFORNIA
AND MELINDA REINOSO WITH ALLIED
UP. PLEASE COME ON UP. WELCOME.
GOOD EVENING AFTERNOON AT
LEISURE WITH STU, CALIFORNIA,
THE PROUD SPONSOR OF A B 28 49
LIKE TO THINK OUR AUTHOR AND
THINK THAT COMMITTEE AND STAFF
ARE WORKING WITH US ON THIS
BILL. WORKER COOPERATORS PRESENT
REALLY INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPAND PATHWAYS TO LIVING WAGE
JOBS WITH BENEFITS AND ENSURING
THAT WORKERS HAVE A SAY IN THE
DIRECTION OF THE BUSINESS. THE
MODEL IS NOT ONLY GOOD FOR
WORKERS, BUT IT'S ALSO SHOWN TO
BE ABLE TO WEATHER ECONOMIC
DOWNTURNS THAT TRADITIONALLY
INCORPORATE BUSINESSES STRUGGLE
WITH BECAUSE OF THE INTERESTS OF
THE WORKERS AND THE BUSINESSES
ARE ALIGNED. UM CO OPS HAVE MANY
ADVANTAGES, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE
SOME FRUSTRATIONS IN TERMS OF
GROWING AND SCALING UP WHICH WE
THINK THIS BILL HELPS TO ADDRESS
. SO FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN YOU KNOW,
CREDIT CARD COMPANY OR A
LANDLORD THEY WANT LIKE A SINGLE
OWNER OR SINGLE MAJORITY OWNER
AND A COOPERATIVE SETTING.
THAT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY DIFFICULT
TO COME UP WITH. ALSO THE
TYPICAL SORT OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES THAT IT'S A LITTLE
DIFFERENT FOR LAWYERS,
ACCOUNTANTS AND OTHERS THAT HELP
BUSINESSES AND SO PROVIDING THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WOULD
ENSURE THAT THIS MODEL CAN
EXPAND AND SCALE UP AND GROW.
EVEN SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS
DEVELOPING BYLAWS IS SOMETHING
THAT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND
EFFORT. AND NOT EVERY LAWYER IS
CUSTOM IN HAS THE EXPERTISE TO
DO THAT. SO YOU KNOW, JUST ONCE
AGAIN APPRECIATE THE TIME WE'LL
TRY TO BE BRIEF AND RESPECTFULLY
. AFTER I VOTE, AND WITH ME, I
HAVE, UM MELINDA REYNOSO, WHO IS
A CO OP. ALL RIGHT, MR O. J AND
PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND YOU MAY
PROCEED WITH YOUR READY. GOOD
EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
MELINDA RENO. SO I'M A MEDICAL
ASSISTANT AND A MEMBER OWNER IN
THE ALLIED WORKER'S COOPERATIVE.
BEING PART OF A CO OP HAS GIVEN
ME THE FLEXIBILITY AND SUPPORT
THAT HAS ENABLED ME NOT ONLY TO
STAY IN HEALTH CARE, BUT TO TAKE
STEPS TO EXPAND MY EDUCATION AND
REALLY MAKE THE MOST OF MY
TALENTS. WHEN I FIRST GRADUATED
AS A MEDICAL ASSISTANT, JOINING
ALLIED UP GAVE ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SET
SCHEDULE. EVEN AS AN EMPLOYEE.
MOST HEALTHCARE WORKERS HAVE TO
BID FOR THEIR SCHEDULES AND
SINCE THAT'S OFTEN BASED ON
SENIORITY MEANT WORKING IGHTS,
WEEKENDS SPLIT SCHEDULES. AS A
MOM. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO
KNOW WHEN I WOULD BE WORKING.
AND WHEN I WOULD HAVE TIME WITH
MY FAMILY ALLIED UP ALSO PAID
MORE THAN I COULD HAVE EVER MADE
WORKING FOR A NON CO OP
EMPLOYER. AND I WAS FILLING A
ROLE IN WORKING WITH THE
HOMELESS POPULATION WHERE THERE
WAS A REAL NEED FOR TRAINED
HEALTHCARE WORKERS. AND, UH, I
SAW THAT MY SCOPE OF PRACTICE AS
A MEDICAL ASSISTANT WAS LIMITED.
I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DO MORE
FOR MY PATIENTS. SO I DEDICATED
TO RETURN TO SCHOOL AND TO
BECOME A LICENSED VOCATIONAL
NURSE. BECAUSE I WAS PART OF A
CO OP. I WAS ABLE TO CHANGE MY
HOURS OF WORK AND LET ME GO BACK
TO SCHOOL WHILE WORKING PART
TIME. AS A MEDICAL ASSISTANT.
BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY MEANT I WAS ABLE TO
MAKE THAT DECISION BECAUSE I
KNEW I COULD START OUT WITH THAT
SAFETY NET HAVE ALREADY BEING
EMPLOYED IN THE HEALTHCARE
INDUSTRY. A TRADITIONAL EMPLOYER
WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN ME THAT
OPPORTUNITY OF WORK. OUR STATE
IS FACING A CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF
HEALTHCARE WORKERS. I KNOW FROM
MY OWN EXPERIENCE THAT HAVING
THE ABILITY TO BE PART OF A CO
OP WORKER CO OP. CAN MAKE A REAL
DIFFERENCE IN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO
TAKE ON HEALTHCARE CAREER AND
PROGRESS IN THAT CAREER. AND
THAT MEANS BETTER QUALITY OF
CARE BEING PROVIDED BY WORKERS
WHO HAVE THE SUPPORT THEY NEED
TO STAY ON THE JOB. IT'S A WIN
FOR WORKERS AND PATIENTS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK
YOU. AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT IS WELCOME TO
COME UP AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR MEMBERS, MITCH
STEIGER, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION. ALSO IN
SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE? HAVE SEEN NONE.
MODERATOR WOULD YOU PLEASE CHECK
THE TOLL CONFERENCE LINE FOR
SUPPORTERS ON A B 28 49 AT THIS
TIME? AT THIS MOMENT IF YOU HAVE
SUPPORT, PRESS ONE AND ZERO AND
YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
WE HAVE NO SUPPORT KEEPING UP AT
THIS MOMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU FOR CHECKING. WE DO NOT HAVE
ANY LEAD OPPOSITION LISTED. IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION? TO THIS BILL. A B 28
49 IF SO COME FORWARD. SEE NO
ONE STEP FORWARD. WE WILL GO
BACK TO THE MODERATOR MODERATOR
THIS TIME IF YOU COULD CHECK FOR
OPPOSITION UNTIL CONFERENCE LINE
ON THE SAME BILL, MAYBE 28 49.
WE'D APPRECIATE IT. FOR ANYONE
THAT HAS OPPOSITION AT THIS
MOMENT, PLEASE PRESS ONE AND
ZERO ON YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
THEY HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. WE WILL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE OR
THEIR QUESTIONS, CONCERNS OR
COMMENTS QUESTION. SENATOR
NEWMAN HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
AUTHORS. SO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA SECURITY THERE ARE IN THE
ANALYSIS IN THE AREA THAT
PROVIDES YOU OVER YOUR
MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING. THERE'S A
THERE'S A PROVISION HERE. THAT
PROVIDES THE VOTING RIGHTS OF
MEMBERS IN SPECIALIST AT EACH
MEMBER SHALL BE ALLOCATED.
VOTING POWER PROPORTION TO ITS
WORKFORCE IS SHARE OF THE TOTAL
ASSOCIATION WORKFORCE. NO MEMBER
SHALL HAVE GREATER THAN 30% OF
THE VOTING POWERS. WOULD YOU
MIND JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE
BIT? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND
THE INTENTION WAS TO AVOID ANY
KIND OF MONOPOLY POWER. I THINK
FOR THERE TO BE MORE THAN MORE%
THAN 41% SHARE IN TOTAL VOTING,
BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THE NUMBER
OF MEMBERS IN THE IN THE
COOPERATIVE WOULD ESSENTIALLY
REFLECT THE VOTING POWER FOR THE
MEMBERSHIP. IN A PROPORTIONATE
MANNER. GUESS WHAT'S CONFUSING
ME IS THE IS THE PRONOUN. SO
WHAT IT SAYS TO ITS WORKFORCE IS
SHARE. THAT MEANS THE
INDIVIDUALS SUPPOSED TO A GROUP
OF WORKERS IS THAT CORRECT THE
WORKFORCE OF THE OF THE MUTUAL
BENEFITS OF THE COOPERATIVE.
OKAY SO, SO VERY IN OTHER WORDS
, IT'S SORT OF VOTING IS ON A
RANDOM BASIS. CORRECT EQUAL VOTE
. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. NO SINGLE
MEMBER WOULD BE WOULD BE
ALLOCATED. 30% OR MORE VOTING
RIGHTS HAS THEIR SHARE OF COMMON
STOCK. DE MAKES SENSE. THANK
YOU. OKAY THANK YOU. IF THERE
ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, WE CAN ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. MOVED BY SENATOR DURAZO
AND WILL COME BACK TO THE AUTHOR
TO CLOSE THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN A
LONG DAY, BUT I WAS COMMENTING
BEFORE I WALKED IN THAT THIS ONE
JUST FEELS LIKE A REALLY, REALLY
GREAT ADVANCEMENT AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE. HIGH ROAD WORK
OPPORTUNITIES IN A TIME WHEN WE
NEED TO BE INCREDIBLY
ENTREPRENEURIAL, AND WE NEED TO
ENSURE THAT THE WORKFORCE IS
STRONG AND HAS A VERY DIFFERENT
WAYS TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT
WE CAN CONTINUE TO THRIVE AS IN
OUR ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND THAT
WORKERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO
SO AND HAVE THAT KIND OF AGENCY.
SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT I VOTE. YES, AND WE
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS ISSUE VERY MUCH WITH THE
SENATOR ROSE'S MOTION. WE WILL
GO TO THE CONSULTANT TO CALL THE
ROLL. FILE ITEM NUMBER 17 A B 28
49. THE MOTION IS DUE PAST BUT
FIRST REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON JUDICIARY, SENATOR CORTEZ E
Z. I, SENATOR KOBO. SENATOR
DURAZO DURAZO I, SENATOR LAIRD.
LAYERED I, SENATOR NEWMAN. THE
BILL IS OUT FOR 040 YOU. AND NOW
THE LONG AWAITED PRESENTATION BY
SENATOR DIRAZ. OH IT'S GOING TO
KNOCK YOU OFF YOUR FEET. 28 48.
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO WAKE YOU
UP, SENATOR LAIRD. ITS LONG
AWAITED FAR IT'S A LONG AWAITED
, BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE
LENGTHY IN NATURE. YOU SAVED BUT
NOT LONG. I HAVE A WHOLE SPEECH.
ALCOHOL SPEECH. THIS IS FOR THE
LISTENING AUDIENCE. THIS IS A B
28 48. IT'S OUR FINAL FILE ITEM
TODAY FOR THIS COMMITTEE ITEM.
16. PLEASE PROCEED. SENATOR ROSA
MAYBE 28 48 WILL GATHER TWO MORE
YEARS OF DATA ON MEDICAL
TREATMENT FOR WORKINGS
COMPENSATION CLAIMS TO DEVELOP A
MORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING
OF WORKERS MEDICAL NEEDS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR NIGHT VOTE.
THAT'S PERSONAL. AND I HAVE ONE
WITNESS. SORRY I HAVE ONE
WITNESS MITCH STEIGER,
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF LABOR.
HE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE
DISPENSING WITH HIS PRESENTATION
. PLEASE PROCEED. WELCOME. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
, MITCH STEIGER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION FROM
THE CO SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, IT
JUST DEALS WITH ONE NARROW PIECE
OF THE MUCH BIGGER ISSUE OF
CHRONIC LACK OF DATA AND THE
WORKERS COMP SYSTEM. WHERE IT
SEEMS LIKE EVERY CONVERSATION WE
HAVE ABOUT WORKERS' COMP TRAILS
OFF INTO OH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
DATA ON THAT. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE COST IS OF THAT. WE DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S EFFECTIVE. AND SO
ALL THIS BILL DOES IS JUST TAKE
A STUDY THAT WAS MANDATED BY SB
11 60 A FEW YEARS AGO. ADD SOME
MORE DATA TO IT SO THAT WE HAVE
WHAT WE NEED WHEN WE'RE
ANALYZING THE SUBJECT OF THAT
STUDY, WHICH IS A WORKER'S
MEDICAL ACCESS AFTER THE 1ST 30
DAYS OF CARE. THE 1ST 30 DAYS OF
CARE ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.
THEY DICTATE IN MANY WAYS HOW
WELL THE WORKERS GOING TO
RECOVER WHETHER THEY'LL EVER
RETURN TO THEIR JOB OF INJURY.
AND NOW WITH THIS BILL WILL HAVE
MORE OF THE DATA INTO THAT
STUDY, AND WE'LL HAVE A BETTER
SENSE OF WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF
THE REFORMS WITHIN SB 11 60 OR
WORKING, WE THINK IT WILL BE
INCREDIBLY HELPFUL IN FIGURING
OUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO FIX
THE SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE, AND WE
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE WILL ASK FOR
GENUINE THE COMMITTEE ROOM WHO
WISHES TO EXPRESS SUPPORT ON THE
BILL. 28 48 WILL GO TO THE
MODERATOR AND ASKED THE
MODERATOR TO CHECK THE TOLL
CONFERENCE LINE FOR ANY SUPPORT
WITNESSES AT THIS TIME. IF YOU
HAVE ANY SUPPORT AT THIS MOMENT
IN TIME, PRESSED ONE AND ZERO ON
YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
WE HAVE NOBODY THAT IS KILLING
US AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. WE
WERE GOING TO CHECK FOR
OPPOSITION. WE HAVE NO READ
OPPOSITION WITNESS. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM WHO WISHES TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION? 28 48 SEEN NOBODY
STEPPED FORWARD. UM WE WILL MOVE
BACK TO THE MODERATOR NASA
MODERATOR TO PLEASE CHECK FOR
OPPOSITION ON A B 28 48. ANY
OPPOSITION TO A B 28 48 AT THIS
MOMENT PRESSED ONE, THEN ZERO ON
YOUR CAPITAL KEYPAD. WE HAVE NO
OPPOSITION ON THE TELEPHONE
BILL. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR LARRY,
IT IS OFFERED EMOTION. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK
ON THIS MATTER IF NOT, SENATOR
DURAZO, YOU MAKE CLOTHES. I
VOTE, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. I THINK
WE CAN DO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO
ASK A CONSULTANT NOW ON THE
MOTION BY SENATOR LAIR TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. FILE ITEM NUMBER
16 A B 28 48. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS, BUT FIRST REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
SENATOR CORTEZ CORTEZ E I.
SENATOR CO BOGUE SENATOR DURAZO
DURAZO. I, SENATOR LAIRD LAYERED
I, SENATOR NEWMAN NEWMAN I THE
BILL IS OUT FOR ZERO BILLS UP
FOR ZERO AND THANK YOU ALL VERY
MUCH. 15 WAS TAKEN UP ON CONSENT
. YOU ARE HERE FOR THE
CONCEPTUAL, OKAY? AND I THINK
OTHER THAN THAT WE GOT THROUGH
EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THAT WE
GOT THROUGH EVERYTHING. UM I DO
WANT TO JUST TAKE ONE MOMENT TO
THANK THE STAFF AGAIN FOR
ANOTHER HEAVY WORKLOAD. THANK
YOU. GLENN MILES FOR THE ROLE
YOU PLAYED THIS TIME. ALMOST
ALMOST. PEREZ IS NOT PRESENT
HERE TODAY, BUT OBVIOUSLY PUT A
LOT OF TIME INTO THIS PARTICULAR
AGENDA. COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. JAKE
FERREIRA. THANK YOU. UM AND EMMA
BRUCE. THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US
ORGANIZED ON A DAY WHEN THINGS
WERE JUMPING AROUND AND PEOPLE
WERE COMING IN AND OUT THAT
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER THAN
US, BUT PROBABLY HARDER ON YOU
SO APPRECIATE ALL THE TESTIMONY
FROM WITNESSES, SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION TODAY. AND WITH THAT
WE WILL ADJOURN. THIS COMMITTEE
MEETING AT THIS TIME, OR DO WE
NEED TO LIFT THE CALL ME ASK
THAT, OKAY. NO CALLS TO LIFT. SO
WE ARE OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU. THAT'S NEXT YEAR.