COMMITTEE. WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
. PLEASE NOTE THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BONTA AND LEE
WILL BE FILLING IN FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RODRIGUEZ AND
SORIA TODAY. TODAY WE'RE GOING
TO CONSIDER TWO BILLS AND, UH,
ONE OF THESE BILLS IS BACK ON
CONCURRENCE. UM I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM, SO WE'RE GOING TO START
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. SO THE FIRST
BILL WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IS A
BEAST SP 799 BY SENATOR
PORTANTINO. THIS BILL ALLOWS
INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN A TRADE
DISPUTE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO
COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
BENEFITS AFTER TWO WEEKS.
SENATOR WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
OKAY?
THEN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB 799 SP
799 WILL RESTORE UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS TO WORKERS WHO ARE
UNEMPLOYED DUE TO PARTICIPATION
IN A TRADE DISPUTE AFTER TWO
WEEKS WE HAVE SEEN HOTEL WORKERS
, NURSES, FAST FOOD WORKERS,
OBVIOUSLY WRITERS, DELIVERY
WORKERS, CITY AND COUNTY
WORKERS, ALL STRIKING. AND
FRANKLY, IT'S CONCERNING IT IS A
PERIOD IN TIME WHERE I BELIEVE
THERE IS SIGNIFICANT. UNREST
WITHIN THE LABOR FORCE. WAGE
DISPARITIES, WORSENING WORK
CONDITIONS, HEALTH AND SAFETY
CONCERNS. THE THREAT OF A I
DISPLACING HUMAN LABOR ARE JUST
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE
RECENTLY MOTIVATED WORKERS TO
SEEK FAIR AND JUST COMPENSATION.
THIS YEAR, WE'VE SEEN AN
UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL OF
CALIFORNIANS STRIKING,
DEMONSTRATING THE STRENGTH AND
UNITY AMONGST OUR WORKING CLASS,
AND, FRANKLY, THEIR FRUSTRATIONS
. DECIDING TO GO ON. STRIKE IS
NOT EASY. YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE
HAVE THIS ROMANTIC VISION THIS
VIEW THAT YOU KNOW, BEING ON
STRIKE IS SOMEHOW YOU KNOW, I'M
ROMANTIC RITE OF PASSAGE. IT'S
NOT. IT'S DIFFICULT. UM I
REMEMBER MY OWN MOTHER IN LAW
TALKING ABOUT WHEN MY FATHER IN
LAW WENT ON STRIKE. HE WAS BW
WORKER AND HOW EVEN THOUGH THEY
ENDED UP GETTING THE CONTRACT
THEY WANTED THE TOLL IT TOOK ON
THE FAMILY DURING THAT TIME WAS
NOT FUN. IT WAS NECESSARY. BUT
IT WASN'T FUN. WORKERS PUT THEIR
LIVELIHOOD ON THE LINE AS BILLS
PILE UP RENT AND MORTGAGES.
POTENTIALLY GO UNPAID AND THEIR
DEBT ACCUMULATES. SO IT'S
CRITICAL FOR WORKERS AND,
FRANKLY FOR THE ECONOMY. TO HAVE
JOB SECURITY AND A SEAT AT THE
TABLE AS WE NEGOTIATE THE FUTURE
OF THE WORKFORCE. THIS IS THE
TIME TO HAVE THAT ROBUST
CONVERSATION AND SO SB 799 WOULD
PROVIDE A LIFELINE FOR
CALIFORNIA'S WORKERS WHILE
PRESERVING THE ECONOMY AND,
FRANKLY, THE RIGHT TO LAWFULLY
STRIKE TO ASK FOR BETTER
CONDITIONS FROM 2012 TO 2022,
CALIFORNIA HAD 56 MAJOR STRIKES.
OF THOSE 56, ONLY TWO LASTED
MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. SO WE'RE
NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT HIT TO OUR SOCIETY,
BUT ACTUALLY WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THOSE
WORKERS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL BECOME
ELIGIBLE UNDER SB 799. COULD BE
SIGNIFICANT BUT MOST LIKELY
BASED ON PAST HISTORY WILL NOT,
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO
PUT THIS BILL IN PROPER CONTEXT
. PEOPLE ALSO SAY WELL, HAS THIS
WORKED IN OTHER PLACES. YES BOTH
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HAVE
SIMILAR LAWS. THE NEW YORK STATE
STATUTE WAS UPHELD BY THE U. S
SUPREME COURT AND FOUND TO BE
PREEMPTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. PAVING THE WAY
FOR CALIFORNIA FOR US TO DO OUR
DUTY AND PASSED THIS TODAY AND
PUT IT ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK
BEFORE THE END OF SESSION. 799
WILL HELP CALIFORNIA'S WORKERS
PUT FOOD ON THEIR TABLE, KEEP
WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
FINANCIALLY SECURE AND KEEP THE
ECONOMY ALIVE EVEN IN THE MIDDLE
OF A LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. SO WITH
ME TODAY, I'M PROUD THAT WE HAVE
MEREDITH STEAM PRESIDENT OF THE
WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST.
AND JOELY FISHER, SECRETARY
TREASURER OF SAG AFTRA, AND WE
HAVE JENNA, UH, JERRY, SENIOR
STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE NATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT. WHO'S
HERE FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
SO THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU MEMBERS. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS MEREDITH STEAM AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE WRITERS GUILD
OF AMERICA WEST. ON BEHALF OF
THE OVER 13,000 MEMBERS OF THE
WGA, WHO WORKED HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE WISH TO EXPRESS
OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR
STRIKING WORKERS. ARE UNION
MEMBERS HAVE BEEN ON STRIKE FOR
122 DAYS. WE ARE IN AN
EXISTENTIAL FIGHT FOR OUR
PROFESSION AGAINST THE POWERFUL
STUDIO MANAGEMENT. FOUR MONTHS
WITHOUT WORK IS EMOTIONALLY
BRUTAL. AND FINANCIALLY
DISASTROUS. THE COMPANIES, OF
COURSE, KNOW THIS AND HAVE
PREYED UPON OUR MEMBERS,
ECONOMIC AND SECURITY AND
PERSONAL ANXIETIES, ONE STUDIO
EXECUTIVE TOLD A REPORTER THAT
THE COMPANY'S ENDGAME IS TO
ALLOW THINGS TO DRAG ON UNTIL
UNION MEMBERS START LOSING THEIR
APARTMENTS AND LOSING THEIR
HOUSES. THIS BLINDLY CRUEL
STATEMENT SHOWS ARE EMPLOYERS
WILLINGNESS TO CAUSE GRAVE
ECONOMIC HARM AS THEY TRY TO
AVOID PAYING US A FAIR SHARE OF
THE VALUE WE BRING TO THE
BUSINESS. I'M PROUD TO REPORT
THAT OUR MEMBERS HAVE HELD
STRONG AND KEPT THEIR RESOLVE
THROUGHOUT THIS LONG, HOT
SUMMER. UM. WE ALSO CALL IT A
HAUNT A HOT LABOR SUMMER, BUT
THEY ARE SUFFERING. BECAUSE
CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE AN
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, WHICH
WOULD PROVIDE SOME FINANCIAL
CUSHION TO THOSE ENGAGED IN THE
WORK STOPPAGE LIKE OURS, WRITERS
HAVE HAD TO RELY ON STRIKE LOANS
FROM OUR UNION DONATIONS,
PHILANTHROPY, 2ND AND 3RD JOBS
TO PAY FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS.
SINCE MAY, 2ND BY CONTRAST, Y
FOR STRIKING WORKERS IS THE LAW
IN NEW YORK AND IN NEW JERSEY.
AND THIS HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS
FOR DECADES IN NEW YORK, OUR
COLLEAGUES AND OUR SISTER GUILD
, THE WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA
EAST, BASED IN NEW YORK.
RIGHTFULLY HAVE ACCESS TO THIS
AND THEY HAVE USED THOSE
BENEFITS, WHICH THEY CONTRIBUTED
TO SUSTAIN THEM THROUGH THE
STRIKE. THE COST OF UI FOR
STRIKING WORKERS DOES NOT BREAK
THE BANK IN NEW YORK. YET
STRIKING WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA
ARE PENALIZED WHEN THERE'S A
WORK STOPPAGE, A PENALTY THAT NO
OTHER WORKER FACES WHILE
UNEMPLOYED. IT'S TIME FOR
CALIFORNIA TO CATCH UP AND MEET
THE DEMANDS OF THE TIME WRITERS
ARE THE PRESENT DAY EXAMPLE OF
WORKERS WHO COULD GREATLY
BENEFIT FROM ME WHY, BUT WE'RE
REALLY HERE FOR THE WORKERS IN
THE FUTURE. WHO WILL NEED THIS
PROTECTION IF THEY MAKE THE
DIFFICULT DECISION TO GO ON
STRIKE. IT IS A SAFETY NET.
CALIFORNIA CAN AND SHOULD
PROVIDE TO STRIKING WORKERS. I
KNOW IT WOULD HAVE MADE OUR
ONGOING STRUGGLE A BIT LESS
DIFFICULT FOR OUR MEMBERS. THANK
YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY.
OKAY WE'RE GONNA TAKE A QUICK
SECOND TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CALDERON PRESENT. CALDERON HERE
, SALLY SALLY HERE, BERMAN
CERVANTES, CHEN FANG GIBSON
GIBSON HERE. GRAYSON GRAYSON
HERE. JOHN SAWYER. JOHN SAWYER.
HERE ORTEGA ORTEGA HERE. BONTA
LI LI HERE, VALENCIA. WOULD
WOULD HERE. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, UM
SO I ACTUALLY GOT EMOTIONAL
LISTENING TO MY SISTER MEREDITH
SPEAK ABOUT 122 DAYS THAT
THEY'VE BEEN OUT THERE. I WENT
OUT THE VERY FIRST DAY AND, UM
AND NOT HAPPY TO JOIN YOUR FIGHT
, BUT IN SOLIDARITY DID JOIN
ALMOST 50 DAYS AGO OURSELVES. MY
NAME IS JOELY FISHER. I AM A
UNION MEMBER FOR 40 YEARS. I
KNOW IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE
BECAUSE I'M SO YOUNG. UM I'M A
SECOND GENERATION UNIONIST, AND
I'M A WORKING ACTOR MOST OF THE
TIME, AND I SERVE AS SECRETARY
TREASURER OF SAG AFTER I'M HERE
TODAY TO SPEAK ABOUT SB 799 A
BILL THAT WOULD PROVIDE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
TO STRIKING WORKERS WHO ARE OFF
THE JOB AND ON THE PICKET LINES
FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. CLEARLY
WE'VE BEEN OUT LONGER THAN THAT
THIS VITAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION
WILL MAKE A REAL IMPACT FOR OUR
MEMBERS AND FOR MILLIONS OF
WORKERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA, A
PROUD AF L C I O SAG AFTRA
AFFILIATE SAG. AFTRA IS AN
AMERICAN LABOR UNION
REPRESENTING MEMBERS WORKING
TOGETHER TO ENSURE PROTECTIONS
FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND MEDIA
ARTISTS INTO THE 21ST CENTURY
AND BEYOND. WE REPRESENT
APPROXIMATELY 160,000 ACTORS
ANNOUNCER'S BROADCAST JOURNALIST
, DANCERS, RECORDING ARTISTS,
SINGERS, STUNT PERFORMERS,
VOICEOVER ARTIST PUPPETEERS THAT
YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT ONE AND
OTHER ENTERTAINMENT AND MEDIA
PROFESSIONALS WORLDWIDE. ALMOST
HALF OF WHOM LIVE AND WORK IN
CALIFORNIA AS I SPEAK TO YOU ALL
RIGHT NOW OUR MEMBERS ARE
MARCHING ON PICKET LINES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AS WE APPROACH LIKE
I SAID, OUR 50TH DAY OF STRIKING
AGAINST THE EMPLOYER TO REFUSE
TO OFFER US A FAIR DEAL ON OUR
TELEVISION STREAMING AND
THEATRICAL CONTRACT. FOR MOST
ACTORS, RIGHT NOW, CONTRACTS ARE
A ONE WAY STREET STUDIOS,
NETWORKS AND STREAMING PLATFORMS
HOLD ALL THE POWER. THEY CALL
ALL THE SHOTS AND MOST ACTORS ME
INCLUDED. ARE WE'RE STILL UNABLE
TO NEGOTIATE SENTINEL CONTRACTS
THAT ALLOW US TO EARN ENOUGH
MONEY TO QUALIFY FOR HEALTH
COVERAGE, LET ALONE SUSTAINED
CALIFORNIA'S CONTINUOUSLY RISING
COST OF LIVING. WHEN AN EMPLOYER
REFUSES TO FAIRLY COMPENSATE
SOMEONE FOR THEIR WORK. THAT
WORKER SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM
TO NEGOTIATE A FAIR DEAL WITHOUT
THE PRESSURES OF WORRYING
WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD TO FEED
THEIR FAMILIES OR TAKE THEIR
SICK CHILD TO A DOCTOR. RIGHT
NOW WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS
WHO ARE FOREGOING A PAYCHECK AND
POTENTIALLY THEIR HEALTH
INSURANCE. IN ADDITION, TO THE
THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS OF THE WGA
WHO HAVE BEEN ON STRIKE FOR 122
DAYS. AS A WORKING ACTOR. I
UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALLY AND
PERSONALLY, THE STRESSES THAT
ARISE WHEN ONE IS OUT OF WORK,
BECAUSE THAT'S MOST OF THE TIME
THE STRESS OF BEING OUT OF WORK
DURING THE STRIKE HAS DIRECTLY
IMPACTED MY OWN FAMILY,
INCLUDING MY FIVE CHILDREN. I
FEAR THAT I WILL NOT EARN ENOUGH
TO QUALIFY THEM FOR HEALTH
COVERAGE. ACTUALLY AS OF TODAY,
I AM NOT GOING TO QUALIFY FOR
HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MY FAMILY.
AND AS PARENTS, OUR JOB IS TO
SHIELD OUR CHILDREN FROM HARSH
REALITIES OF THE WORLD. AND YET
I WORRY THAT MY CHILDREN WILL
BEGIN TO FEEL THE ADVERSE
EFFECTS OF NOW MYSELF AND MY
HUSBAND WHO'S A 35 YEAR MEMBER
OF IASI, NOT WORKING AS WELL.
DESPITE THE HARDSHIP I AM ON
STRIKE BECAUSE WE ARE FIGHTING
TO NEGOTIATE A FAIR AND SENSIBLE
CONTRACT THAT ALLOWS US TO EARN
ENOUGH MONEY TO QUALIFY FOR
HEALTH COVERAGE, KEEP A ROOF
OVER OUR HEADS AND KEEP UP WITH
CALIFORNIA'S COST OF LIVING. I
AM ON STRIKE TO FIGHT AGAINST
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE
WORKPLACE AND OTHER COMPANY
PRACTICES THAT INCREASE WORKER
PER CARAT E AND THREATEN THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF JOBS IN THE
OVERALL INDUSTRY. THE RESEARCH
HAS DEMONSTRATED THIS TIME AND
TIME AGAIN WHEN UNION MEMBERS
NGUYEN STRONG CONTRACTS, THEY
LIFT UP WAGES AND LABOR
STANDARDS FOR WORKERS ACROSS THE
ENTIRE INDUSTRY. UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR STRIKERS
WILL HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT ON
THE UI FUND. BUT IT WILL MAKE A
HUGE DIFFERENCE TO OUR MEMORIES
AND COMMUNITIES, ACTORS WILL
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY
GROCERIES AND SCHOOL SUPPLIES
AND PAY BILLS AND RENT AND EVEN
BRING DONUTS OR COFFEE TO THE
PICKET LINES. SPEND THAT MONEY
AT THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE
STRUGGLING IN OUR AREAS, THE
RESTAURANTS THE GROCERY STORES,
NAIL SALONS, HAIRDRESSERS,
DRUGSTORES, AND SO MANY MORE
THAT RELY ON ENTERTAINMENT
INDUSTRY TO STAY AFLOAT. DENYING
UI TO STRIKING WORKERS IS
ANOTHER WAY THAT EMPLOYERS HOLD
AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER WORKERS
FIGHTING FOR WHAT IS RIGHT CEO S
PLAY THE WAITING GAME, KNOWING
WORKERS LIVING ON THE MARGINS
HAVE TO PAY RENT, AND THEY HAVE
GROCERIES TO BUY. SB 799 WORK
GIVES WORKERS A CHANCE TO FIGHT
FOR WHAT'S FAIR. WE ARE IN THE
FIGHT OF OUR LIVES. FOR OUR
JOBS, OUR INDUSTRY OUR FUTURE.
WE CANNOT WAIT ANY LONGER FOR U
I BENEFITS THAT WILL HELP US
SURVIVE AND WILL HELP ALL
WORKERS TO STAND UP TO FIGHT FOR
A BETTER FUTURE. URGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN THE ROOM?
UP THERE. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
SARAH FLOCKS. CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION PROUD CO SPONSOR OF
SB 799. HELLO CONNIE CHAN ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA STATE
TREASURER'S OFFICE, PROUD CO
SPONSOR OF SB 7, 99. AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. AFTERNOON SCOTT
BRENT WITH THE SMART
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION,
CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATIVE
BOARD IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
KIMBERLY ROSENBERG ER ON BEHALF
OF S E I U AND WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY AND SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SHANE GASSMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS, THE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, THE
UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS OF
CALIFORNIA UNITED HERE IN THE
MACHINIST UNION. AND BECAUSE
JESSE GRAY WALL COULDN'T BE
HERE, ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE UFCW
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
RACHEL TORRES WITH THE WRITERS
GUILD OF AMERICA WEST AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
MEGAN SUPERS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIRE
FIREFIGHTERS IN THE CSU
EMPLOYEES UNION AND SUPPORT
MICHELLE WARSHAW ON BEHALF OF
STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION TONY THURMOND IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
AND MEMBERS BRIAN MIRAMONTE TO
ASK ME CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS AMY
HÌNH SHAIKH WITH UNITE HERE
LOCAL 11, AND THEY'RE 32,000
MEMBERS IN RIVERSIDE, SAN
BERNARDINO, ORANGE AND LOS
ANGELES COUNTIES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS TRISTAN BROWN WITH
THE CFT UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS, THE
STATEWIDE AFFILIATE FOR THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. 70 PER
YEAR ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, IGNACIO HERNANDEZ ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNICATION
WORKERS OF AMERICA DISTRICT NINE
AND SUPPORT. SETH BRAMBLES,
SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF MORE
THAN 300,000 EDUCATORS, THE
MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, SYLVIA.
SOLELY SHAH HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. FRANCESCA
WANDER CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG,
INDIVISIBLE, INDIVISIBLE
SACRAMENTO, INDIVISIBLE YOLO AND
INDIVISIBLE SAN FRANCISCO IN
STRONG SUPPORT. KENNY LAY HIM ON
BEHALF OF COMMISSIONER CARTER
LARA, CALIFORNIA PART OF
INSURANCE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OKAY DO WE HAVE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? YOU'RE
WELCOME. OKAY THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ROBERT RETREAT FOR
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO
SB 9799 AS A JOB KILLER. FIRST
LOOK THANKS STAFF FOR THE
THOROUGH ANALYSIS THE BILL GIVEN
THE TIGHT TIMELINE, OUR
OPPOSITION IS BASED ON FOUR
BASIC CONCERNS HERE, NUMBER ONE.
THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE THAT
WE'VE YOU STRIKE. BEING ON
STRIKE IS FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT THAN BEING UNEMPLOYED.
AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE
LAW. BUT BUT SOMEONE ON STRIKE
HAS A JOB AND HIS CHOOSING NOT
TO WORK TO CREATE ECONOMIC
PRESSURE ON THEIR EMPLOYER. AND
THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT IS EASY,
BUT THAT IT IS AN ECONOMIC
TECHNIQUE TO CREATE THAT
PRESSURE THE TERM MAYBE, AS
NOTED IN A I ISSUE A COST OF
LIVING INCREASE, BUT IT IS A
NEGOTIATING TECHNIQUE. THAT IS
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN
SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN LET GO AND
HAS NO IDEA WHEN OR IF THEY WILL
WORK AGAIN. AND I'VE BEEN LET GO
FROM ONE OR TWO JOBS. SADLY AND
I WILL SAY THAT IT'S A TERRIBLE
FEELING, BUT IT IS DIFFERENT
THAN BEING ON STRIKE. SECOND
THERE'S AN ISSUE AS TO THE U I
FUNDED AND THE TAX IMPLICATIONS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS. AS
YOU ALL KNOW, THE UI FUND IS IN
HISTORIC DEBT DUE TO THE STATE
ORDERED SHUTDOWNS AROUND COVID
19. EMPLOYERS ARE ALREADY PAYING
TAX INCREASES FOR THAT THOSE
SHUTDOWNS AND WILL CONTINUE TO
FOR THE NEXT DECADE. UM TO THE
COMMENT TO THE I SHOULD SAY THE
EXTENT OF THIS MEASURES EFFECT
WE RETAINED AN ECONOMIST AND TRY
TO DO SOME MATH AROUND HOW MUCH
THIS WILL COST OUR ESTIMATE IF
THIS BILL HAD BEEN AFFECTED, THE
LAST 12 MONTHS IS AROUND $215
MILLION FROM BENEFITS FROM THE
UI FUND. NOW OVER THE OBVIOUSLY
YEARS ARE DIFFERENT. BUT OVER
THE COURSE OF 10 YEARS ESTIMATED
INSOLVENCY. WE SEE THAT AROUND
$2 BILLION ADDED TO THE FUN
DEBT, AND THAT'S A VERY
SIGNIFICANT TAX INCREASE FOR US
ACROSS CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS.
THIRD THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW
ISSUE. FEDERAL LAW LAYS OUT THE
BASIC FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS TO BE
ELIGIBLE FOR UI, YOU MUST BE
ABLE TO WORK AVAILABLE FOR
LOOKING FOR WORK AND UNEMPLOYED
THROUGH NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN. UM
AND WE DO NOT CANDIDLY SEE HOW
THOSE CAN BE READ IN
CONJUNCTION. NOW WITH RESPECT TO
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. THEY
HAVE MADE THOSE CHANGES. I'VE
SPOKEN. THIS FEDERAL EXPERTS IN
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE
PROGRAMS HAVE NOT BEEN BLESSED.
IT'S MORE A MATTER OF DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR DISCRETION AS TO IF
THOSE TERMS ARE ENFORCED.
UNFRIENDLY WELL, LET'S JUST SAY
AN UNFRIENDLY ADMINISTRATION TO
CALIFORNIA COULD ENFORCE THOSE
TERMS AND CAUSE CATACLYSMIC
ISSUES FOR OUR PROGRAM. AND
FINALLY WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT TDD FEASIBILITY HERE. AS
WE ALL KNOW, EDIE IS COMING OUT
OF A VERY ROUGH PATCH AND TRYING
TO RECOVER FROM THE PANDEMIC
PROBLEMS WITH THE NEXT PROGRAM.
ANOTHER IMPROVEMENTS. WE HAVE
BIG CONCERNS THAT CHANGING
ELIGIBILITY AND A DRASTIC NEW
WAY MID OVERHAUL COULD BE REALLY
HARD AND NEEDY AND NEGATIVELY
AFFECT THEIR OVERHAUL AND THEIR
FRAUD PREVENTION AND ACCURACY
AND CLAIMS. AH SO FOR THOSE
REASONS WE ARE OPPOSED TO SB 799
IS A JOB KILLER, AND I WOULD
PASS TO MY COLLEAGUE K¾T DAVEY
FROM THE RESTAURANTS. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON K¾T DAVEY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION. WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO SB 799 BETWEEN MARCH
AND APRIL OF 20 20/1 MILLION
RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES WERE LAID
OFF TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC HEALTH
ORDERS THAT CLOSED RESTAURANTS
TO STOP THE SPREAD OF COVID 19.
THE IMPACT FROM THE PANDEMIC HAS
LEFT CALIFORNIA'S UI FUND FACING
AN UNPRECEDENTED 18 BILLION
DEFICIT. ROUGHLY TWICE THE SIZE
OF THE DEFICIT FROM THE GREAT
RECESSION. MANY RESTAURANTS LIKE
AMBROSIA AND PIZZA ROCK ACROSS
CALIFORNIA SHUT DOWN AND NEVER
REOPENED. THOSE THAT MANAGED TO
SURVIVE THE CLOSURES ARE DEALING
WITH SIGNIFICANT DEFICIT OR DEBT
ON THEIR OWN. I WANT TO FLUSH
OUT WHAT ROB SAID. REGARDING
THESE TAX INCREASES, WHICH ARE
ASSESSED ON A PER EMPLOYEE BASIS
BECAUSE RESTAURANTS EMPLOY A LOT
OF CALIFORNIANS TO COMPARED TO
OTHER INDUSTRIES, INCLUDING A
LOT OF PART TIME AND SEASONAL
JOBS WERE BEING HIT PARTICULARLY
HARD BY THESE TAX INCREASES, AND
THEY WILL GET EVEN HARDER AS
THEY INCREASE OVER THE NEXT
DECADE. I REMEMBER IN 2017 2016
TIMEFRAME WHEN WE WERE REPAYING
A MUCH SMALLER UI DEBT AFTER THE
GREAT RECESSION, THE SIERRA
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS TEAM WAS
REGULARLY FLOODED WITH CALLS
FROM INDEPENDENT RESTAURANT
TOURS ASKING. WHAT IS THIS
MASSIVE FEDERAL BILL? I HAVE TO
PAY. I DON'T HAVE $30,000 IN
SAVINGS TO PAY. THIS RESTAURANTS
ARE OFTEN PAYROLL TO PAYROLL AND
DON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS
, LET ALONE SIX MONTHS OF
OPERATING EXPENSES SAVED. SO
THIS KIND OF TAX IS A BIG DEAL
TO US. FOR RESTAURANTS AND MANY
OTHERS WHO WERE CLOSED DUE TO
GOVERNMENT ORDERS. THIS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF FAIRNESS.
WE ARE NOW LEFT HOLDING THE BAG
WHEN IT COMES TO REPAYING THE UI
DEFICIT DURING THE PANDEMIC
YEARS, THE STATE ENJOYED MASSIVE
BUDGET SURPLUSES. YET NONE OF
THOSE FUNDS WERE PUT TOWARDS
REPAYING THE UI DEFICIT. DESPITE
PROPOSALS IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
TO PROVIDE SOME HELP. THEY WERE
STRIPPED THIS YEAR AND NO HELP
HAS BEEN PROVIDED. MY MEMBERS DO
NOT SEE IT AS FAIR, UH, TO NOW
ASK RESTAURANTS TO SUBSIDIZE
STRIKING WORKERS WHEN WE ARE
PRESENTLY PAIN, INCREASED TAXES
FOR THE PANDEMIC DRIVEN UI DEBT
, AND THAT BRINGS ME TO THE
SECOND POINT ON FAIRNESS, EVEN
EMPLOYERS WHO ARE NOT PRESENTLY
HAVING A STRIKE OR WHO NEVER HAD
ANY PROLONGED STRIKE ARE GOING
TO BE PAIN. INCREASED TAXES
UNDER SB 799. THIS IS
FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO
NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANTS IN YOUR
DISTRICTS WHO WILL BE PAYING
MORE BECAUSE OF THE LABOR
DISPUTE THAT THEY HAVE NO
INVOLVEMENT WITH. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO SB 7 99. THANK YOU.
YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC OPPOSITION?
ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MATTHEW WANT THE
WESTERN GROWERS ALSO A POST GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR CHRIS
MCKAY LI ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. YEAH
JULIE MALANOWSKI BOB HALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOTEL AND LODGING
ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION. TIM TAYLOR OF THE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS IN
OPPOSITION. JACKIE ON THIS ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA FEELS
INCONVENIENCE, ALLIANCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. NATALIE BOUNCED ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE IN CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION. A YOUNG WITH
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA TRAVEL
ASSOCIATION, FAMILY WINEMAKERS
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE WESTERN
CARWASH ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. LAWRENCE GAINING ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. FAITH BORDERS ON
BEHALF OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITIES CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAW COUNCIL AND I'VE
ALSO BEEN ASKED TO REGISTER
OPPOSITION FOR MY COLLEAGUES AT
SISAK AND AXA. MOLINA ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA FORESTRY
ASSOCIATION IN THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP AND
RESPECTFUL OFFICE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
CARLOS WOULD TEAR SOMETHING OUT
OF THE CALIFORNIA GROCERS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION. ALEX
TORRES ON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA
COUNCIL AND THE NEW CALIFORNIA
COALITION AND OPPOSITION ALSO
BEEN ASKED TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION
FOR L. A COUNTY BUSINESS. THANK
YOU. BRIGHT GLAD GUILTY WITH
APEX GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS IN A
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANKS. JOHN
MARTIN ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
BRIAN LITTLE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. TAYLOR
RUSSIAN ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS
AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS AND
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON. RYAN
ELAINE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. NICK
CHAPPY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. UNLESS A CELL HIGH ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF RECREATION AND
PARK DISTRICTS AND ALSO ON
BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES AT THE
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION AND URBAN COUNTIES
OF CALIFORNIA THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SABRINA DEMEO
LOCKHART ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTRACTIONS AND PARKS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. AFTERNOON JONNY PENA WITH
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MICHAEL
MILLER, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF WINE GRAPE GROWERS.
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. SARAH CAN ON BEHALF OF THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
TYLER GERLACH ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASIAN PACIFIC CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. MADAM CHAIR,
REMEMBERS BOBILLIER ON BEHALF OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN
EMPLOYERS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SEE NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS. THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER. THANK YOU, SENATOR. UM
IT IS REALLY INTERESTING ISSUE
BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN ALL
SYMPATHIZE WITH THE CHALLENGES
THE WRITERS ARE FACING. I AGREE
THAT A I PRESENTS A THREAT TO
OUR WAY OF LIFE UNTIL LOT OF
INDUSTRIES UM AND SO THERE'S NO
DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS WHETHER
THE TAXPAYER OR OTHER SMALL
BUSINESSES SHOULD SUBSIDIZE THE
ACTIVITIES OF UNIONS. SO.
SENATOR I'LL ASK YOU. I MEAN,
THE ESTIMATED COST HERE IS THAT
IT COULD COST UP TO $2 BILLION A
YEAR FOR THIS FUND OR TO FUND
THIS BILL OR THE STRIKING
ACTIVITIES. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE
CURRENT BALANCE OF THE
UNEMPLOYMENT FUND? YEAH, I KNOW
THAT THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE
FUND. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
HERE TO DISCUSS TODAY, AS FAR AS
WHETHER THIS POLICY MAKES SENSE
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
WHETHER IT IMPACTS THE ECONOMY
ON A POSITIVE NOVEL OR A
NEGATIVE LEVEL, AND I WOULD
STIPULATE THAT WELL PAID WORKERS
ARE EXCELLENT CONSUMERS. SHORTER
STRIKES ARE BETTER FOR THE
ECONOMY AND WELL PAID WORKERS
WHO CONSUME MORE PRODUCTS AND GO
TO MORE RESTAURANTS ACTUALLY
MAKE THOSE RESTAURANTS MORE
SUCCESSFUL. SO I THINK IN THE
LONG RUN. THIS WILL HAVE A
BENEFIT, SO IT'S NOT JUST THE
COST OF AN ISOLATION YOU CAN
HAVE TO BE, UH, PROJECT OUT THE
BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY AND THE
MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF WHAT A WELL
TRAINED AND WELL PAID WORKFORCE
WILL CONTRIBUTE AS CONSUMERS,
AND SO I THINK THE NET BENEFIT
WILL BE POSITIVE, NOT NEGATIVE
THING WITH MONEY. IT'S NOT
THEORETICAL TO REAL THING. SO
YOU'RE AWARE OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT
FUND IS IN DEBT OVER $18
BILLION, RIGHT? SO THAT'S A LOAN
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
NOW EXPECTING SMALL BUSINESSES
TO PAY AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE
INCREASING THEIR DUES FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE THAT THEY HIRE. EVERY
YEAR UNTIL IN PERPETUITY UNTIL
THAT'S PAID OFF, AND IT'S NOT A
SMALL AMOUNT. THE NEXT STATE, I
THINK IS UNDER 8 BILLION. THAT'S
NEW YORK SO WE'RE WAY OVER
DOUBLE THE GOVERNOR PROMISED TO
HELP PAY THAT OFF, AND HE HAS
NOT DELIVERED ON THAT. AND SO I
JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN AFFORD
TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL EXPENSES
ON THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND ONE
ALREADY AT $18 BILLION UM, IT
JUST DOESN'T SEEM RESPONSIBLE.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE YOU
AWARE OF THE FEDERAL LAW THAT
THE DEFINITION OF WHAT QUALIFIES
FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS THAT
THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO BE A PERSON
WHO IS READY AND WILLING TO
IMMEDIATELY ACCEPT WORK? ARE YOU
AWARE THAT THAT IS THE LAW UNDER
US? 42 U. S. C. 5038 12. ARE YOU
ASKING ME? IF THIS IS
CONSTITUTIONAL, I WOULD SAY YES
, I'M ASKING YOU IF THIS IS
GOING TO JEOPARDIZE OUR FEDERAL
FUNDING FROM FROM CONGRESS,
CONGRESS PROVIDES A LOT OF MONEY
FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
FUND, AND THEY HAVE PARAMETERS
ON THAT ONE OF THE PARAMETERS IS
THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO BE
READY AND WILLING TO WORK HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
ARE NOT INVOLUNTARILY OUT OF
WORK. THEY'RE MAKING A DECISION
. I UNDERSTAND. WHY DON'T THAT'S
UP TO THEM. THEY'RE DECIDING TO
STOP WORKING TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL
PRESSURE ON AN EMPLOYER TO COME
TO THE TABLE. I HAVE NO QUALMS
WITH THAT. THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT
TO DO THAT. BUT MY CONCERN IS
THAT THIS IS GONNA JEOPARDIZE
FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SO HAVE YOU
CONSIDERED THAT OR IS THAT A
CONCERN TO YOU? UH I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT'S AN ACCURATE
STATEMENT. I DON'T THINK IT'S
GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THE FEDERAL
FUNDING COMING IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, SO I DISAGREE WITH
YOUR THESIS. OKAY THANK YOU. MR
SILLY. JUST HAVE A COUPLE MORE
QUESTIONS LEFT. MR GRAYSON HAD A
QUESTION. I'M NOT DONE. I'M NOT
DONE SPEAKING. GO AHEAD, MR
GRAYSON, MADAM. HOLD ON. ONE
SECOND CHAIR CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR
IF I COULD ASK THE FOR TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, WE HAVE A SURE THAT
WOULD BE GREAT, OK? HI I'M JENNA
GARY I'M A SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW
PROJECT AND THEIR SOCIAL
INSURANCE PROGRAMS SPECIALIZING
IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND
I, JUST ON THE NOTE OF THE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. HE'S
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT UNDER
FEDERAL LAW WHEN AN ONGOING
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT OF
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS THAT
YOU'RE ABLE AVAILABLE, UM AND
ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR WORK,
THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE THAT
REQUIREMENT. UH STRIKE GREAT
STRIKING WORKERS WILL STILL HAVE
TO APPLY FOR BENEFITS AND MEET
THOSE ONGOING ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS. UM HOWEVER,
TECHNICALLY, YES, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IF A STATE IS OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW.
THEY CAN REMOVE ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNDING FROM THE STATE THAT HAS
NEVER HAPPENED IN THE 90 YEARS
OF THE PROGRAM. UM AND IT MOST
LIKELY IS NOT GOING TO BECAUSE
THAT EFFECTIVELY SHUTS DOWN
ESTATES UI PROGRAM. UM, THERE'S
ALSO 1979 CASE LAW THAT. LOOKED
AT NEW YORK'S LAW THAT ALREADY
PROVIDED AH, YOU HAD A STRIKING
WORKERS AND FOUND THAT IT WAS
COMPLIANT WITH FEDERAL LAW AND
THEN STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT AH,
STRIKING WORKERS CAN GET UI. SO
THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY A CONCERN.
IT WOULDN'T RAISE FEDERAL
CONFORMITY ISSUES. THANK YOU
WOULD LIKE TO JUST CONCLUDE WITH
REMARK IF I CAN. UM I THINK THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION BEFORE US
IS. IS IT FAIR FOR THE TAXPAYER
TO SUBSIDIZE THIS USING
ACTIVITIES? UM WHETHER OR SOME
OTHER GROUPS, YOU GUYS ARE
UNIONIZED OR OTHER UNION
INTERESTS THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH
YOURS LIKE S C I U HAS $400
MILLION IN THEIR BANK. THEY CAN
ASSIST THE WORKERS THROUGH THIS
DIFFICULT TIME. I JUST DON'T
THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK THE
TAXPAYER AND THE SMALL
BUSINESSES TO DO THAT AND OUT OF
THEIR MONEY. THEY'VE SPENT 63
MILLION ON POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
. SO THEY'VE GOT MONEY OUT THERE
. THEY SHOULD HELP YOU. I JUST
DON'T THINK THE TAXPAYERS CAN
AFFORD IT. SO WITH THAT I WILL
BE OPPOSING THIS, BUT THANK YOU.
MR GRAYSON. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED
BY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR GRAYSON. MR ORTEGA. HAVE
MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A
QUESTION. UM SINCE ARRIVING TO
SACRAMENTO. I'VE LEARNED MORE
ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
AH UNFORTUNATELY, I'VE SEEN MORE
ARTIFICIAL THAN INTELLIGENCE. UM
. AND SERIOUSLY AND HEARING SOME
OF THE COMMENTS TODAY ARE
ARTIFICIAL. ARGUMENTS OPPOSING
THIS BILL. UM FOR ONE. I KNOW
THAT GOING ON STRIKE IS A LAST
RESORT. WORKERS DO NOT GO ON
STRIKE FOR FUN. THEY DON'T PUT
THEIR LIVELIHOOD ON THE LINE FOR
FUN. THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE
THEY DESERVE THE WAGES THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR THEIR
ENTIRE LIVES LIKE OUR TESTIMONY
TODAY. SO I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR. AND APPRECIATE TODAY'S
BILL, AND WITH THAT, I WANT TO
MOVE THE MOTION. SECOND THANK
YOU, SECRETARY, COLORADO. ALL
THAT MADAM CHAIR MAMMOTH IS
CLOSING STORY, PLEASE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU. FIRST
OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIR FOR HAVING THE HEARING
TODAY AND ALL THE MEMBERS WHO
ARE HERE AND FRANKLY EVERYONE
WHO WHO I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T
REALLY SHE HAD A QUESTION. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND SENATOR. MY APOLOGIES. JUST
ALSO WANTED TO ASK SOME
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON THIS
PARTICULAR TOPIC. AH BUT
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IS
SPONSORING A B 504 WHICH WOULD
ALLOW SYMPATHY STRIKERS TO JOIN
PICKET LINES. THERE'S ALSO
ANOTHER BILL A B 14 84, WHICH
WOULD ALLOW TEMPORARY WORKERS OF
CITIES AND COUNTIES TO JOIN
EXISTING BARGAINING UNITS. IF
THIS BILL WERE TO MAKE IT TO THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND SIGNED
BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THESE
WORKERS BE ABLE TO CLAIM
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AS WELL.
WITH THIS YEAH, SO AGAIN IN
ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, THERE'S
SEVERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
A YOU HAVE TO BE MONETARY
ELIGIBLE, WHICH MEANS YOU'VE
EARNED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WAGES
WITHIN YOUR BASE PERIOD. WHICH
IS ROUGHLY YEAR BEFORE YOU FILE
FOR BENEFITS YOU THEN YOUR
REASON FOR SEPARATION HAS TO BE
A QUALIFYING REASON. AND THIS IS
WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT RIGHT,
SAYING THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE
CURRENTLY AH, WITHOUT WAGES DUE
TO A STRIKE. THAT IS NOT
ABSOLUTE, LIKE BARRIER TO
ACCEPTING AND GETTING
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND THEN
YOU HAVE TO MEET THE ONGOING
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THE
ABLE AVAILABLE SEEKING WORK AND
SO IF THEY MET ALL THOSE
REQUIREMENTS, THEY THEN WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE. AND, OF COURSE, IF
THERE EMPLOYER HAS BEEN PAYING
INTO THE PROGRAM ON THEIR BEHALF
AS WELL. SO IT'S HARD TO ANSWER
THEIR THEORETICALLY COULD BE
JUST THE FACT OF GOING OUT ON
STRIKE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY
DISQUALIFY THEM FROM BENEFITS.
WONDERFUL THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO
THERE'S A LOT OF LATITUDE IN
WHETHER OR NOT FOLKS WOULD
QUALIFY DEPENDING ON THESE
PARAMETERS. UM I'D ALSO LIKE TO
GET A BETTER SENSE OF HOW MANY
CALIFORNIANS WOULD BENEFIT FROM
THIS, UH, THIS RESOURCE AS WELL.
AND I KNOW IT'S HARD TO PUT A
NUMBER TO THE INDIVIDUALS ON
STRIKE BECAUSE THAT CHANGES ON A
YEARLY BASIS, BUT IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT
THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON
CALIFORNIA AGAIN. I THINK IT'S A
GOOD QUESTION, BUT THE NUMBER OF
STRIKES THAT LAST BEYOND TWO
WEEKS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
REMEMBER YOU HAVE TO BE ON
STRIKE FOR TWO WEEKS IN ORDER TO
GET THIS BENEFIT, AND SO THE
QUESTION IS, HOW MANY STRIKES
DOES THIS PREVENT? VERSUS HOW
MANY STRIKES DOES THIS MAKE
SHORTER VERSUS HOW MANY STRIKES
LAST LONGER? WE BELIEVE THIS
WILL ENHANCE THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT CONVERSATION
PROACTIVELY. AND PREVENT STRIKES
OR SHORTENED STRIKES AND ALSO
CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT MONICA OF
SUBSISTENCE AND ASSISTANCE FOR
THOSE FAMILIES WHO ARE ON STRIKE
. SO UM, WE THINK THE OVERALL
NET IS GOING TO BE A BENEFIT,
BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU LIKE THE
NUMBER OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S THOSE
OTHER OTHER SITUATIONS THAT ARE
GOING TO BE POSITIVE. THROUGHOUT
THIS CONVERSATION. SURE, INDEED
, JUST THAT WOULD BE THEORETICAL
IN THE FUTURE. BUT DO WE HAVE A
SENSE OF TODAY'S NUMBERS?
NUMBERS ON WORKERS ON STRIKE AND
WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE? OH
WITH YOUR SOMEBODY WOULD BE
CHAIRS PERMISSION IF YOU WANT
TO. SORRY. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN
ADDRESS SOME OF IT. IF YOU'D
LIKE. YEAH FEEL FREE. I WAS JUST
GOING TO SAY THAT I WOULD ECHO
THE COMMENTS OF THE AUTHOR THAT
IT IT VARIES A LOT YEAR TO YEAR
SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE NUMBER I
CAN AFTER THIS HEARING, PULLED
THE NUMBER FOR THE LAST 12
MONTHS THAT WE USED FOR OUR
ESTIMATES IF THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT
THERE IS A GREAT VARIETY YEAR TO
YEAR BASED ON NUMBERS OF STRIKES
AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO IT'S
HARD TO IT'S HARD TO JUST PICK A
NUMBER, BUT WE CAN. I'M GLAD TO
SHARE MY ASSUMPTIONS. YOU KNOW,
ON OUR SIDE AFTER THE HEARING.
SURE I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE
SOME CLARIFICATION ON BOTH
SIDES. UNDERSTANDING OF THE
SORRY I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE
SOME CONTACTS. SO YEAH, I
BELIEVE IN THE, UM THE ANALYSIS
OF THIS BILL, YOU'LL SEE THAT
FROM 2012 TO 2020, THERE WAS
EXACTLY TWO STRIKES THAT LASTED
LONGER THAN TWO WEEKS. SO WHAT,
POTENTIALLY BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR
THIS? UM, I BELIEVE IN THE
CHAMBERS OPPOSITION THEY
ESTIMATE 150,000 WORKERS A YEAR
COULD POTENTIALLY BE ELIGIBLE
JUST TO PUT THAT IN CONTEXT YOU
KNOW ABOUT 150,000 WORKERS ARE
LAID OFF ON AVERAGE PER MONTH IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHO ARE
MOST LIKELY ELIGIBLE FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND THEY
ARE THE MAIN THE MAIN USERS OF
THE PROGRAM. SO YOU KNOW, EVEN
ON THAT HIGH END, WHICH I THINK
IS A HIGH END ESTIMATE, ALSO
CONSIDERING THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE ABOUT A 45%
RECIPIENT. SEE RATE. THIS MEANS
45% OF ALL UNEMPLOYED WORKERS
ACTUALLY COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE. SO EVEN ASSUMING YOU
HAD 150,000 PEOPLE ON ON STRIKE
, UM JUST KNOWING GENERAL UI IT
WOULD BE PROBABLY HALF THAT EVEN
WOULD POTENTIALLY APPLY FOR AND
BE ELIGIBLE, AND OF COURSE, THEY
WOULD HAVE TO NOT BE MAKING ANY
OTHER. IF THEY MAKE OTHER INCOME
THEY HAVE TO REPORT. THEREFORE
THEIR BENEFITS WOULD GO DOWN, SO
JUST TO PUT IT IN A LITTLE BIT
OF CONTEXT, AND I DO APPRECIATE
THAT, AND THE QUESTION IS MORE
SO TO PUT SOME CONTEXT TO THIS
RIGHT AND BE ABLE TO PUT A
NUMBER TO IT. NOT NOT OBVIOUSLY
HOLD ANYONE ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT
DATA. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT SUCH A LARGE POLICY ISSUE,
I THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO HAVE A
SENSE OF THE MAGNITUDE. I WOULD
ALSO APPRECIATE JUST SOME
CLARIFICATION ON AH, THE
ANALYSIS FROM BOTH SIDES WHEN IT
COMES TO THE IMPACT TO THE FUND
ITSELF. I'VE HEARD NUMBERS FROM
THE SUPPORTERS AND THEN I'VE
ALSO HEARD NUMBERS FROM THE
OPPOSITION. AND THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, SO MAYBE
JUST SOME OF THE METHODOLOGY AS
TO HOW THAT CAME TO BE SO WE CAN
GET SOME DISCREPANCY. UH, MAYBE,
UH, THE STATED PUBLICLY AND THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. MR
FONG. QUICK QUESTION. IF I CAN
ASK THAT, MAYBE THE EXPERT AND
MAYBE FROM THE OPPOSITION IN THE
IN THE ANALYSIS AND I'M SURE
BOTH READ IT. IT STRUCK ME.
THERE WAS A PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS
STATES CAN REQUEST WAIVERS, FOR
EXAMPLE, I BENEFIT COST RATIO
ADD ON WAIVER FOR HIS CREDIT
REDUCTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO, UM,
THE TAX CREDIT. UM AND ONE
CRITERIA REQUIRES STATES TO TAKE
NO LEGISLATIVE ACTION OR OTHER
ACTIONS TO DECREASE THE NET
SOLVENCY OF THE UFO AND WITHIN A
SPECIFIED PERIOD AND IT DID. IT
GOES AND SAY THAT THAT ACTIONS
LIKE THIS COULD JEOPARDIZE
CALIFORNIA ELIGIBILITY FOR, UH
FOR BCL WAIVER, UM, OR AT THE
STATE COULD BE ASSESSED, UM, A
TAX CREDIT REDUCTION. CAN
SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME? DOES THIS
DOES THESE TYPES OF LEGISLATION
OR DOES THIS PROPOSAL RISK A
WAIVER? UM AND? AND SO WHAT
WOULD THE IMPACT TO THE SOLVENCY
OF THE FUN? YEAH I'M HAPPY TO
ADDRESS THAT, UM, JUST TO, YOU
KNOW, START OUT WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA
TRUST FUND, THE CALIFORNIA TRUST
FUND HAS BEEN IN CRISIS FOR
DECADES. IT HAS SINCE 1990 NOT
MET THE U. S DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR'S RECOMMENDED SOLVENCY
LEVELS ACTUALLY HEADING INTO THE
PANDEMIC. THE U. S DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR HAD IT RANKED AS THE LEAST
SOLVENT FUND ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
INCLUDING PUERTO RICO. UM AND
WASHINGTON D. C UM SO JUST TO
LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT A
NEW PROBLEM. THE U. S TRUST FUND
HAS BEEN IN CRISIS SINCE 1983
WHEN WE REFUSED TO RAISE THE TAX
BUT WAGE BASE. UM AND SO WHAT
HAPPENS IS UNDER THE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM.
THERE'S A FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE TAX, WHICH IS REFERRED
TO AS FUTURE. IT IS SET AT 6%
HOWEVER, WHEN EMPLOYED WHEN
STATES ARE COMPLIANT WITH
FEDERAL LAW, AND THERE ISN'T ANY
OUTSTANDING LOANS. EMPLOYERS GET
A 5.4% TAX CREDIT NOW WHEN YOU
HAVE AN OUTSTANDING LOAN THAT'S
NOT PAID OFF. WITHIN TWO YEARS
THAT TAX CREDIT STARTS GOING UP
, AND SO EACH YEAR GOES UP, 0.3%
SO YOU GO FROM 0.6% TAX. TAX
BILL TO A 0.9. UM WHEN YOU HIT
YOUR FIFTH YEAR OF NOT PAYING IT
BACK, THERE IS A NEW POTENTIAL
REDUCTION IN THE TAX CREDIT
CALLED THE BENEFIT COST RATIO.
ADD ON ALL VERY TECHNICAL, BUT
WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT INSTEAD OF
JUST A 0.3 TAX REDUCTION TAX
CREDIT REDUCTION, YOU COULD BE
FACING A LARGER ONE THAT IS
CALCULATED LOOKING AT TOTAL
BENEFITS PAID VERSUS REVENUES
COMING IN. UM IN THAT FIFTH
YEAR, A STATE CAN APPLY FOR A
WAIVER. AND THAT IS WHERE THAT,
UM, POTENTIAL. WHERE YOU THE.
THE FED THE U. S. D O L WILL
LOOK AT WHETHER YOU HAVE PASSED
A LAW THAT IS IN EFFECT BY
SEPTEMBER. 30TH OF THAT YEAR
THAT REDUCES THE OVERALL
SOLVENCY OF THE FUND NOW.
INHERENT IN THAT ASSERTION IN
THE ANALYSIS THAT, UH THIS COULD
POTENTIALLY IMPACT THAT BY
REDUCING THE SOLVENCY FUND IS,
UH, ASSUMPTION THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO DO
NOTHING IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS
TO ACTUALLY FIX AND ADDRESS THIS
CRISIS, WHICH I THINK IS
UNTENABLE. THIS IS A CRISIS THAT
HAS BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, AND
IT CONTINUES TO HURT WORKERS
BECAUSE WE HAVE A FOREIGNER 50
BENEFIT AMOUNT THAT HAS NOT
CHANGED IN 20 YEARS. THAT IS NOT
LIVABLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND WE CONTINUE TO
HAVE THEN EVERY TIME AFTER EVERY
RECESSION WE'VE HAD TO BORROW
AND TAX EMPLOYERS TAXES GO UP
WHERE IF WE ACTUALLY DO REAL
REFORM AND HAVE A TAX RATE AND
HAVE A LARGER TAXABLE WAGE, BASE
AND TAX RATE GOES DOWN, WE CAN
HAVE A SUSTAINABLE FUND, WHICH
MEANS EMPLOYERS WILL PAY TAXES
ON BEHALF OF THEIR EMPLOYEES
THAT WILL MEET THE NEEDS OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WHEN WE GO INTO
RECESSION, WE WILL HAVE FUNDS
BUILT UP. WE WILL NOT HAVE TO
BORROW. WE COME OUT OF THE
RECESSION AND EMPLOYER TAXES
WILL NOT GO UP. UH CERTAINLY
APPRECIATE THAT ANALYSIS. I
THINK I THINK THAT CLARIFIES A
NUMBER OF THINGS I THINK I THINK
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS INSOLVENCY IS
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, AND I
THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF
ASSUMPTIONS BEING MADE ON BOTH
SIDES. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I
DIDN'T KNOW IF THE OPPOSITION
WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE
ANALYSIS THAT WAS PROVIDED OR OR
NOT, IF NOT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
PERMISSION. YES I WOULD LIKE AN
EXPLANATION OF B. C. R IS APT.
IT IS KICKED OUT THE FIFTH HERE,
AND THAT IS KIND OF WHAT THE
QUESTION I THINK THAT THE OTHER
UNSPOKEN POINT THAT I SHOULD
FLAG RIGHT IS THAT THIS IS
INDISCRETION OF THE FEDERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. IN TERMS OF
A LOT OF HOW THIS IS VIEWED
RIGHT? SO DEPENDING ON WHO WINS
THE NEXT ELECTION, RIGHT OR THE
ELECTION AFTER THAT, AND AFTER
THAT, RIGHT, THAT
INTERPRETATION, I THINK IS
SOMETHING WHICH AH, WE WOULD
VIEW AS DIFFERENT. I'LL JUST SAY
DIFFERENT PARTIES MAY TAKE
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS SHOULD
THEY BE IN FEDERAL CONTROL? I
THINK THAT'S A CONCERN FOR US.
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE
PERSPECTIVE OF SIDES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IF THERE
ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WILL GO
TO CLOSING REMARKS, SENATOR.
THANKS A ONE MORE THING. SURE.
UM WITH THE CHAIRS. PERMISSION
WITH MADAM CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR?
YES. ONE MORE THING. YES. FOR
YOUR QUESTION. YOUR QUESTION
WASN'T ANSWERED. I'M SORRY JUST
TO REVERT BACK TO THE QUESTION
THAT WAS SKIPPED OVER MR FONG'S
QUESTION, MR VINCE WONG'S
QUESTION. YEAH THE METHODOLOGY
RIGHT THERE. THERE IS A STARK
DIFFERENCES, UM, WHEN IT COMES
TO THE IMPACT ON YOU, I THINK
IT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT THAT
NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED THAT WE
GET A BETTER SENSE OF HOW THIS
IS GOING TO IMPACT CALIFORNIA IN
THE FUTURE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. SORRY AGAIN, I'LL TRY
TO BE BRIEF RESPECT TO THE
EVERYONE'S SCHEDULE. JUST SAY I
MEAN, WE WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WAS
TAKE A MODEL BASED ON THE
STRIKES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN
THE LAST 12 MONTHS AND TREATED
LOOKING AT THAT DATA. I DON'T
HAVE THAT LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS IN
FRONT OF ME, AND I SAID, I'M
GLAD TO SHARE BUT THAT WAS OUR
FOCUS. UM I CAN'T SPEAK TO YOU
KNOW ANYONE ELSE'S METHODOLOGY,
BUT THAT WAS KIND OF HOW WE
LOOKED AT IT TO FIND AN
ANECDOTAL MODEL. YEAH AND I DID
NOT PUT TOGETHER. UM MY OWN
ANALYSIS ON THIS. I CAN SAY, I
THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A
VERY MUNICIPAL IMPACT. AS I SAID
BEFORE. THERE'S 150,000 LAYOFFS
IN CALIFORNIA, ON AVERAGE
OCCURRING RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT THE LARGER THE POOL
OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS
, STRIKING WORKERS AS SUCH A
SMALL POOL OF POTENTIALLY
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS THAT LIKE I
SAID, THE FUND IS IN CRISIS AND
THIS SMALL IMPACT WILL NOT
ACTUALLY CHANGED THE FACT OF THE
CRISIS OR CHANGE THE DEGREE OF
IT, BUT WHAT IT WILL DO IS MAKE
A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THAT
INDIVIDUAL STRIKING WORKERS LIFE
UM AND I'M HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP
WITH MORE STATISTICS. YOU KNOW,
I COULD LOOK AT NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY, TOO, AND WE COULD SEE
THE IMPACT THAT IT'S HAD ON
THEIR FUND OVER THE YEARS. I
WILL SAY THAT NEW JERSEY HAS A
REALLY HEALTHY FUND AND IT
REALLY GREAT PROGRAM AND IS
ACTUALLY WE LIFT NEW JERSEY UP
AS A MODEL STATE. UM AND IT'S
HAD PROVIDES YOU FOR STRIKING
WORKERS AS WELL. THANK YOU. I
WOULD APPRECIATE JUST FOR MY
SAKE THAT DATA AND WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL IN
COMMITTEE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
ALSO RESERVE MY RIGHT AFTER I
REVIEWED THAT DATA, IF AND WHEN
IT DOES COME TO THE FLOOR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SO, SENATOR, UM
, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR CLOSING
REMARKS OR YOU CAN ALLOW HER TO
MAKE IT ON YOUR BEHALF. BUT I
CAN'T OPEN UP TESTIMONY AGAIN.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. NO THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND
THANK YOU. UM I AGAIN I JUST
WANT TO APPRECIATE THE CHAIR,
THE ROBUST CONVERSATION. WE HAD
ALL THE MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE. UM
AND I HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, AGREE
WITH WITH JENNA. YOU KNOW, THE
FUND HAS BEEN IN AN ISSUE FOR A
LONG TIME. WE SHOULD NOT LET
THIS MOMENT IN TIME TO DO THE
RIGHT THING AFFECT OUR DECISION
FOR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN A LONG
TERM PROBLEM. WE SHOULD USE THIS
AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT HOW
WE IMPROVE THE FUND GOING
FORWARD. AND I'VE SAID THAT FROM
THE BEGINNING IF THIS BILL WHICH
WILL HAVE A SMALL IMPACT ON THAT
FUND STIMULATES THE BIGGER
CONVERSATION TO HAVE HOW WE MAKE
IT MORE SOLVENT GOING FORWARD
AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR
CALIFORNIA'S TAXPAYERS. WE
SHOULD SEIZE THAT OPPORTUNITY AS
WELL. THE OTHER THING WE
SHOULDN'T DO IS WE SHOULDN'T
REVERT TO THAT CONVERSATION OF.
WELL, WHY DO I PAY? MY FIRE
DISTRICT FEE. IF THE FIREFIGHTER
GOES TO MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE,
THEY DIDN'T COME TO MY HOUSE.
WHY SHOULD I PAY THE SCHOOL BOND
? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE KIDS IN
THE SCHOOL. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE
COLLECTIVE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY
THAT WE LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER
THAT WE TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER
THAT WE SAY WE PLAN FOR THE
CRISIS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL AND
HAS BEEN SAID THE OVERALL IMPACT
OF THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE
SIGNIFICANT ON THE FUND, BUT THE
INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT. TO THAT
STRIKING WORKER WHO HAS TO THINK
ABOUT BUYING FOOD FOR THEIR
FAMILY OR PAYING THEIR RENT.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
BENEFIT TO THAT PERSON, AND I
WOULD SAY IT'S INCUMBENT UPON
ALL OF US. TO PROVIDE THAT
BENEFIT BECAUSE WHAT TOUCHES ONE
OF US TOUCHES ALL OF US? AND
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL IS NEEDED
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE SB 799
PORTANTINO MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALDERON
CALDERON I SALI SALINO BERMAN
FURMAN, I CERVANTES CERVANTES, I
CHEN VINCE FONG. VINCE PHªN NO
GIBSON. GIBSON I GRAYSON
GRAYSON. I JOHN SAWYER. JOHN
SAWYER. I ORTEGA ORTEGA I BONTA
BONTA, ISLAY VALENCIA. VALENCIA
I WOULD WOULD I. BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU.
OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 2 84 58 SOME
LEMON SAWYER, JOHN SAWYER. UM,
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY GOOD JOB.
GOOD JOB. TO SEE YOU. THE
QUESTION SECOND. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. A
BEFORE 58 IS BACK FOR
CONCURRENCE AND SEND AN
AMENDMENT WITH SIMPLY CLARIFIES
GOT YOU. OH MAYBE YOU CAN KEEP
GOING. MAYBE FOUR OR 58 IS BACK
FOR CONCURRENCE AND SENATE
AMENDMENTS WAS SIMPLY CLARIFIES
THESE WHO DO INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER ENSURE
PROPER INTERPRETATION OF
EXISTING STATUTE LAST YEAR, MY
BILL 83 71, WHICH EXTENDED
EXISTING SCOOTER INSURANCE
PROTECTIONS TO PROTEST REINES
PAST THE LEGISLATURE WAS STRONG,
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW. DOING SO
PEDESTRIANS, ESPECIALLY THOSE
WITH VISION, IMPAIRMENTS AND
OTHER DISABILITIES WERE AFFORDED
COVERAGE FOR INJURIES CAUSED AT
NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, BECAUSE
EXISTING STATUTES ESTABLISHED BY
MY BILL DOES NOT EXPLICITLY
STATE AN ACCURATE AMOUNT. I
BECAME INFORMED THAT THERE HAD
BEEN CONFUSION THAT THREATENS
PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
INSURANCE REQUIREMENT THOSE
SILENT ON THE ISSUE THE EXISTING
INSURANCE PRODUCT THAT A B 371
WAS MODELED AFTER ALLOWS FOR
AGGREGATE LIMITS ON THIRD PARTY
LIABILITY INSURANCE. EVEN WHEN
THE ORIGINAL POSSIBLE POLICY IS
SIMILARLY SILENT ON AGGREGATE.
LIMITS WITHOUT CLARIFICATION
LANGUAGE. THIS WILL BE A
CONTINUED PROBLEM FOR PROVIDERS
AS THE CURRENT INSURANCE QUOTES
OR PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE AS
SUCH EXPLICIT CLARIFICATION OF
LAWS WARRANTED A B 458 RECEIVED
UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN
THE SENATE AND NO REGISTERED
OPPOSITION WITH ME TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL IS CHARLES
RIGHT ON BEHALF OF BIRD MANAGER
CHARLES RIGHT FROM BIRD. I WILL
NOT READ MY STATEMENT. IF IT'S
ALREADY BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
THAT'S THE PREFERENCE. IT'S
WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? SEE NONE. DO WE HAVE
ANY PUBLIC? UM, SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION FOR THIS BILL? SEE
NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THIS
BILL? SAY NONE OF THIS WOULD MR
JOHNSON. CLOSE RESPECT MY VOTE.
THANK YOU, SECRETARY. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO A. B 458 JONES SAWYER MOTION
IS SENATE AMENDMENTS BE
CONCURRED IN CALLED AROUND I
CALDERON SALIH I. BERMAN BERMAN
CERVANTES. CHEN. VINCE FONG FONG
GIBSON. GIBSON I GRAYSON RACE
AND I, JOHN SAWYER. I SWEAR I
ORTEGA ORTEGA Y BONTA. I WANT TO
I LI LI I VALENCIA VALENCIA. I
WOULD WOULD I? CERVANTES
CERVANTES? AYE. THIS BILL GETS
OUT. THANK YOU, MR JONES. VERY
MUCH. THIS CONCLUDES THE
ASSEMBLY INSURANCE COMMITTEE,
RIGHT? YES. YEAH. I'M GOOD COMES
BACK. SORRY COMMITTEE IS
ADJOURNED. GREAT.