GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
SEPTEMBER 7TH. 2023 ASSEMBLY
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING
. WE HAVE TWO BILLS TO CONSIDER
THIS MORNING AS PART OF OUR
REGULAR ORDER HEARING. BEFORE I
BEGIN. LET ME FIRST THINK WE
NEED A NEED FOR A SUB SUBSTITUTE
TODAY, AND I LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FRIEDMAN FOR
JOINING US TODAY ON THE
COMMITTEE. WE'RE ENCOURAGED THE
PUBLIC TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HEARING BY
VISITING THE COMMITTEE WEBSITE
APRIL DOT ASSEMBLY DOT CA.GOV.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY WRITTEN
TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERED PUBLIC
COMMENT AND MAYBE READ INTO THE
RECORD OR REPRINTED. THE HEARING
ROOM IS NOW OPEN FOR ATTENDANCE.
ALL ARE ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE
HEARING FROM ITS LIVESTREAM ON
ASSEMBLY WEBSITE AT ASSEMBLY DOT
CA.GOV BACKSLASH TODAY'S EVENTS
. WE ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO
MONITOR THE COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE
FOR UPDATES. WE WILL ACCEPT
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY BILL
PLACED OH, WELL. JUST HAVE
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE BILLS THAT
WILL BE BEFORE US TODAY. THE
COMMITTEE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO
THE TWO BILLS THAT WILL BE
PRESENTED, UH, LET ME JUST AT
LEAST ALSO REMIND THE PUBLIC AS
YOU CAME INTO THE HEARING ROOM
TODAY. THE SERGEANT'S DIRECTED
YOUR ATTENTION TO THE RULES WERE
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE AND
PARTICIPATION, WHICH WERE POSTED
OUTSIDE THE DOOR ENCOURAGED
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WERE
INTENDED TO BE AWARE OF AND
OBSERVE THOSE RULES. PLEASE BE
AWARE THAT VIOLATIONS OF THESE
RULES OR OTHER VIOLATIONS OF
GENERAL COURTESY OF DECORUM MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO REMOVAL. OR OTHER
ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES. WITH
THAT. LET'S MOVE TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. I DO BELIEVE WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE JUST ONE MORE SHORT. ONE
SHY SO WELL, LET'S MOVE AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE AND TAKE UP THE
FIRST BILL BEFORE US AND THAT'S
SP 7 99 BY SENATOR PORTANTINO.
THAT IS A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
. SENATOR FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
PLEASED TO BE PRESENTING SB 799,
WHICH WOULD RESTORE UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS TO WORKERS WHO ARE
UNEMPLOYED DUE TO PARTICIPATION.
IN A TRADE DISPUTE. UM AND I
WOULD KICK IN AFTER TWO WEEKS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY, THOSE OF US WHO
DRIVE AROUND CALIFORNIA AND
PARTICULARLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WE SEE HOTEL WORKERS. NURSES
FAST FOOD WORKERS, WRITERS,
DELIVERY WORKERS, ACTORS, CITY
AND COUNTY WORKERS, ALL
STRIKING, AND FRANKLY, IT'S
CONCERNING THERE IS A TIME POINT
IN TIME RIGHT NOW WHERE THEY'RE
SIGNIFICANT UNREST. WITHIN OUR
WORKFORCE. PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT BUSINESS MODELS. AI OTHER
CONCERNS ABOUT DISPLACING
TRADITIONAL WORKFORCE JOBS THAT
HAVE BEEN IN CALIFORNIA FOR SOME
OF THEM ARE CENTURY. UM AND IT'S
UNPRECEDENTED, SO I KNOW WE WANT
TO TALK ABOUT THE FISCAL IMPACTS
OF THIS BILL. SO YES, IT WOULD,
UH, FORD THAT THOSE WORKERS
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT FROM 2012
2022, CALIFORNIA HAD 56 MAJOR
STRIKES OF THOSE 56. ONLY TWO
LASTED MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. AND
SO THAT SHOULD PUT THIS IN
CONTEXT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
A SIGNIFICANT IT TO THE FUND,
BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT TO THE
WORKER. AND I THINK THAT'S
WHAT'S IMPORTANT IF WE GET
PEOPLE THROUGH A LABOR DISPUTE
AND BACK TO WORK, THE OVERALL
HEALTH AND WELFARE THE ECONOMY
BENEFITS OBVIOUSLY, IF WORKERS
HAVE WAGES COMMENSURATE WITH
THEIR THEIR TALENTS AND THEIR
SKILLS AND ARE PAID VENTURE WITH
THE OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR 2023
ECONOMY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE
BETTER CONSUMERS AND THAT WILL
MAKE THE ECONOMY OVERALL
HEALTHIER. SO PROTECTING THE
WORKERS' ABILITY TO STRIKE PUT
FOOD ON THEIR FACE THEIR THEIR
TABLE AND PAY THEIR RENT, I
THINK IS IN THE COLLECTIVE BEST
INTERESTS OF ALL OF US. AND SO
WITH THAT I HAVE MEGHAN STUPORS
ON BEHALF OF THE WRITERS GUILD
OF AMERICA AND SARAH FLOCKS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION. AND IT WAS THE
FEDERATION WHO BROUGHT THIS BILL
TO THE FOREFRONT AND
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR YOU TO
HEAR THEM OUT. THANK YOU.
WELCOME APPRECIATE YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA. WHERE
IS YOURS? THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. MEGAN SUPER IS ON
BEHALF OF THE WRITERS GUILD OF
AMERICA WEST. THE WRITERS GUILD
REPRESENTS ABOUT 13,000 MEMBERS
IN CALIFORNIA. THESE ARE WRITERS
FOR TV SHOWS, MOVIES, VIDEO
PROGRAMMING, NEWS PROGRAMMING,
AND 13,000 OF THEIR MEMBERS ARE
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, AS WE KNOW.
W G EIGHT MEMBERS ARE CURRENTLY
ON STRIKE, AND WE THINK CONSERVE
AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THIS BILL
IS SO IMPORTANT FOR ALL WORKING
PEOPLE IN OUR STATE. WE'RE ON
ABOUT A DAY 128 FOR THE WRITERS
STRIKE RIGHT NOW. THEY'VE BEEN
RELYING ON STRIKE LOANS, MUTUAL
AID, PHILANTHROPY, 2ND AND 3RD
JOBS TO PAY FOR FOOD, GAS AND
RENT. ONE STUDIO EXECUTIVE
ANONYMOUSLY, COMMENTED TO A
REPORTER IN JULY THAT THE
COMPANIES WERE WAITING UNTIL
FALL OR WINTER TO MAKE A DEAL.
THEIR END GAME, THEY SAID. QUOTE
IS TO ALLOW THINGS TO DRAG ON
UNTIL UNION MEMBERS START LOSING
THERE ARE APARTMENTS AND LOSING
THEIR HOUSES AND QUOTE. ACCESS
TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR
STRIKING WORKERS IS THE LAW IN
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. IT'S
BEEN THE LAW IN NEW YORK FOR
DECADES. AND WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE ABLE TO
EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO STRIKE
WITHOUT LOSING THEIR HOMES ARE
FACING FINANCIAL RUIN, AND THAT
IS WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT FOR
ALL WORKING PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE THINK IT'S TIME
FOR CALIFORNIA TO CATCH UP AND
MEET THE DEMANDS OF THE TIME.
THE WRITERS MAYBE THE CURRENT
EXAMPLE OF WORKERS WHO NEED IT,
BUT THEY ARE ALSO THE VOICE FOR
THE WORKERS GOING FORWARD. WHO
WILL NEED THIS PROTECTION IF
THEY MAKE THE VERY DIFFICULT
DECISION TO STRIKE AND SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
SARAH FLOCKS, CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND I WANTED TO FOCUS
ON THE FISCAL ASPECT. UM
EXPANDING UI. TWO STRIKERS WILL
NOT CHANGE THE SOLVENCY OF THE
U. I FUND IT WILL HAVE A VERY
MINIMAL IMPACT. AND I WANT TO
PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT. UM, THE
AMOUNT OF STRIKING WORKERS IN
THE PAST AND CURRENTLY HALES IN
COMPARISON TO JUST THE AVERAGE
MONTHLY CLAIMS OF THE UI FUND.
NOW THERE IS 100 AND 57,000
WORKERS LAID OFF ON AVERAGE A
MONTH IN CALIFORNIA IN 2022, THE
UI FUND PAID OUT $5 BILLION IN
UI BENEFITS. THE PREDICTION FROM
E D. D JUST IN MAY OF 2023 IS
THAT THAT'S GONNA INCREASED OVER
$6 BILLION PAID OUT BY THE FUND
TO UNEMPLOYED WORKERS WHO ARE
CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE. IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS THAT
CAME OUT THE ESTIMATES OF THE
FUND FOR THIS BILL WAS IN THE
MILLIONS TO THE TENS OF
MILLIONS. AT THE HIGH END TENS
OF MILLIONS. THE HIGH END
ESTIMATE OF THIS BILL WITHOUT
KNOWING WHAT THE IMPACT WILL
WILL BE OF HOW MANY WORKERS ON
STRIKE WOULD ONLY COME TO LESS
THAN 1% OF WHAT'S PAID OUT ON
THE HIGH END WOULD BE 0.2% OF
THE IMPACT THAT IS NOT GOING TO
CHANGE. THE FISCAL HEALTH OF THE
U. Y FUND. UM IN ADDITION, THE
TAKE UP OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS
REALLY ONLY 43% SO YOU COULD CUT
THE NUMBER OF STRIKING WORKERS
IN HALF WHO WOULD ACTUALLY APPLY
FOR BENEFITS. ON THE FLIP SIDE,
THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF
EXPANDING UI IS HUGE. WHEN YOU
HAVE A STRIKE, THERE'S A NUMBER
OF WORKERS WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED IN
ONE AREA. WE SEE THAT WITH THE
INTERNET MINT STRIKE IN IN LOS
ANGELES. AND THAT IMPACTS LOCAL
BUSINESSES WHEN YOU HAVE YOU, I
WHAT WE SAW DURING THE PANDEMIC
. ECONOMIC ECONOMISTS ESTIMATED
THAT EVERY DOLLAR OF UI BENEFITS
GENERATED $2 IN ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY. THAT MONEY IS GOING TO
CORNER STORES TO RESTAURANTS TO
CATERERS TO NAIL SALONS TO THE
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALSO
STRUGGLING ALONG WITH WORKERS
WHO ARE ON STRIKE. SO THIS BILL
MAKES GOOD FISCAL SENSE. AND WE
URGE YOUR EYE BOAT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THE
DETAIL AND COMPLETENESS OF THE
BOTH PRESENTATIONS. SENATORS AS
WELL WILL NOW ENTERTAIN MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO
COMMENT. OKAY THERE'S A MOTION
BEFORE WE DO THAT. LET'S WE HAVE
TO SET A QUORUM. WE'LL PAUSE ON
THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A MOMENT
WE'LL TURN TO THE CLERK TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. HOLDEN.
DOLLY! BRIAN CALDERON. WENDY
KOREA, DIXON PHªN HOT.
LOWENTHAL. MATHIS. HAPPEN.
PELLERIN. SANCHEZ. FRIEDMAN.
WEATHER. WILSON. WE HAVE A
QUORUM LOOKS TERRIBLE. RECOGNIZE
MR LOWENTHAL AS A MOVER OF THE
BILL THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.
IS THERE A SECOND? LOOK AT MY
SIMILAR REPELLENT. WILL NOW GO
TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR OR
AGAINST THE BILL. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBER SETH BRAMBLE
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, SHANE
GUSSMAN ON BEHALF OF SAGA AFTER
THE TEAMSTERS, THE AMALGAMATED
TRANSIT UNION MACHINISTS UNITE
HERE, UM, UTILITY WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA AND THE ENGINEERS AND
SCIENTISTS OF CALIFORNIA ALL IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, TRISTAN BROWN OF
THE CFT UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS HERE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, IGNACIO HERNANDEZ ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNICATION
WORKERS OF AMERICA DISTRICT NINE
IN SUPPORT. MORNING CHAIR
MEMBERS. JANICE O'MALLEY WITH
ASKED ME CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS LOUIS COSTA, WITH THE
SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION SMART TD
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS JESSICA HEY, WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. JESSE
GRAY, WELL, UFCW WESTERN STATES
COUNCIL AND STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS MATT
CREMINS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONFERENCE OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS WERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, CHRIS MCKAY LI ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THE
MEASURE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, TIM TAYLOR WITH
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, SABRINA DEMEO LOCKHART
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ATTRACTIONS
AND PARKS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, KATIE DAVEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
MORNING MR CHAIR MEMBERS, CARLOS
GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERY ASSOCIATION
AND VARIOUS AGRICULTURE
COMMODITIES IN OPPOSITION.
MORNING JOHN MOFFITT ON BEHALF
OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF
ENGINEERING COMPANIES IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING,
MATTHEW. WELL, NORTHWESTERN
GROWERS, ALSO A POST. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, DOUG SUPERS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
ALYSSA, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYEES UNION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DOUG. I'M GLAD YOU LANDED ON THE
RIGHT PLACE ON THIS PARTICULAR.
I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. IS THERE ARE THERE
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IN
THE MIRROR, FREEMAN THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NORMALLY WHEN I'M
ASKED TO SUB ON A COMMITTEE I
SAY NO. OR I DON'T WANT TO SAY
YES, BUT I DO IT RELUCTANTLY.
WITH THIS TIME I WAS VERY HAPPY
TO BE ASKED TO SUB TODAY. I'M A
PRINCIPAL CO AUTHOR OF THIS
BILL. I WANT TO THANK THE
LIBERAL FEDERATION AND THE
SENATOR FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
MY AREA RIGHT NOW IS VERY
HEAVILY IMPACTED BY STRIKES IN
LOS ANGELES. I REPRESENT AN AREA
THAT'S HOME TO A LOT OF FILM AND
TELEVISION WORKERS. AS WELL AS
MANY PEOPLE IN THE MEDICAL
INDUSTRY WHO ARE CURRENTLY ON
STRIKE. AND SOME OF OUR OUR
STRIKES, UM, INVOLVING HOSPITALS
AND MEDICAL CARE. AND LET ME
JUST TELL YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE ON THE GROUND. UM I OTZI
HAD A FOOD DRIVE A FEW WEEKS AGO
THAT I ATTENDED TO HAND FOOD
OUT. AND I EXPECTED THERE TO BE
YOU KNOW, SEVERAL DOZEN PEOPLE
COMING. THE LINE OF CARS WAS SO
LONG COMING FROM ALL OVER LOS
ANGELES TO TAKE FOOD AND DIAPERS
, HOME TO PEOPLE'S HOMES THAT
THE POLICE HAD TO SET UP AN
ENTIRE LANE OF TRAFFIC. UM,
DON'T RUNNING THROUGH THROUGH
BURBANK TO THE HIGHWAY BECAUSE
THEY WERE LITERALLY HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF CARS COMING FOR
WORKING MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE. TO
GET FOOD AND DIAPERS THAT THEY
COULDN'T BRING HOME. THE IDEA
THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ON STRIKE
ARE GOING TO JUST NOT THINK MUCH
ABOUT GOING ON STRIKE BECAUSE
THEY'RE GOING TO GET E. D D IN A
HIGH RENT AREA, LIKE LOS ANGELES
IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT PAYS OUT
EVERY MONTH IS PROBABLY NOT
ENOUGH TO COVER MOST FAMILIES
RENT MUCH LESS FOOD. AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS. COSTS OF LIVING.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE
PANIC. THEY CAN'T PUT FOOD ON
THE TABLE. THEY THINK ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENS IF THEY CAN'T MAKE THAT
NEXT MORTGAGE BILL AND HAVE TO
LEAVE. AND I KNOW THIS IS A
FISCAL COMMITTEE. SO LET ME JUST
SAY THAT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
THAT KIND OF DISRUPTION AND THAT
KIND OF SUDDEN. THRUST INTO A
DIRE SITUATION FOR PEOPLE WHO
ARE USED TO WORKING AND PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO WORK IS ABSOLUTELY
DEVASTATING TO THE ENTIRE
ECONOMY. OF AN AREA. SO THIS IS
A SMALL LIFELINE TO PEOPLE WHO
ARE EXECUTING THERE RIGHT THERE,
RIGHT. TO WITHHOLD WORK. WHEN
THEY FEEL THAT THE CONDITIONS OR
THE PAY ARE NOT COMMENSURATE
WITH THE VALUE BEING OFFERED.
IT'S THE ONLY REAL CHANCE THAT
EMPLOYEES HAVE TO STAND UP FOR
THEIR OWN RIGHTS. THIS ALLOWS
THEM THE ABILITY TO DO THAT,
WITHOUT RISKING THE WELFARE OF
THEIR FAMILIES. IT GIVES THEM
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF.
IT'S MINOR COST AS YOU HEARD IN
TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF E, D D,
BUT FOR THESE FAMILIES, IT'S
GOING TO BE PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT
. SO I ASK YOU FOR THE SAKE OF
ALL OF THOSE WORKERS WHO ARE
HARD WORKING PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BUILT AND YOU KNOW THE
ECONOMY OF OUR STATE. LET'S JOIN
OTHER STATES THAT HAVE ALREADY
DONE THIS AND ALLOW FOR STRIKING
WORKERS TO HAVE THE RELIEF OF E
D D. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
REMEMBER DIXON? THANK YOU CHAIR
. UM IS THERE SOMEONE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HERE? NO,
NO. UM OKAY. I THINK THAT I'M
SORRY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DID
NOT HAVE A FILE. THEY'RE NOT
HERE TO PRESENT. OKAY WELL, THEN
, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE
WE ALL HAVE KNOWN SINCE COVID.
WITH THE FRAUDULENT SITUATION
WITH E D. D, UM WHICH THE BURDEN
OF PAYING DOWN THAT, UH. DEAD. I
GUESS IT IS A 20 OR $30 BILLION
DEBT. FALLS ON THE BACKS OF
BUSINESS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
THAT QUESTION TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. I'VE NEVER HEARD THE
ANSWER TO THAT. AND HERE WE'RE
NOW WE'RE WITH THIS SITUATION.
AS UNFORTUNATE AS THAT MAY BE,
BUT WHO PAYS FOR THIS? AND IT
FALLS ON THE BACKS OF BUSINESS
AND ESPECIALLY SMALL BUSINESS.
UM SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE REMEDIED
OVER TIME, BECAUSE WE'RE JUST
COMPOUNDING THAT AND THEN I DO
HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION TO
THE AUTHOR. JUST TO CLARIFY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL IS DOES
DO WANNA ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ELIGIBLE
TO THE STRIKING WORKERS FOR A
UNION MEMBER WHO'S NOT
OFFICIALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE
STRIKER UNION? THAT'S NOT, UH,
STRIKING, OR IS THIS JUST
SOMEONE WHO'S AH, PARTICIPATING
BY NOT WORKING IN SYMPATHY TO
ANOTHER UNION. SO YOU HAVE TO BE
ELIGIBLE. BASED ON WORKING AND
THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ELIGIBLE
BASED ON BEING PART OF THE
STRIKE. OKAY SO IT'S JUST THOSE
UNIONS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN
THE WORK STOPPAGE WHO ARE
DEFINED AS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE
LAW, ALL RIGHT? ALRIGHT WE STILL
DON'T KNOW HOW THE 20 OR $30
BILLION IS GOING TO BE REMEDIED
OTHER THAN ON THE BACKS OF SMALL
BUSINESS. I DO UNDERSTAND OVER
YEARS OF FOLLOWING LABOR
NEGOTIATION, EMPLOYEE LABOR
MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS THAT
MANY UNIONS ACTUALLY HAVE FUNDS
BUILT UP OVER TIME THROUGH
MEMBER DUES TO HELP MEMBERS, UH,
HAVE SOME KIND OF PAYMENT TO
SUBSIDIZE DURING THE STRIKE
ACTIVITY. DOES THIS UNION DO
THAT? I KNOW A FL C I O ARE THE
UNITED AUTO WORKERS. THEY ALL
HAVE LARGE FUNDS TO COVER DURING
STRIKE AND CURRENTLY READ ABOUT
THAT NOW GOING ON TALKING ABOUT
SOME STRIKES WITH AUTO INDUSTRY
THAT THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE
THAT ARE TAKEN FROM EMPLOYEE
PAYCHECKS INTO THEIR DUES DOES
DO THESE UNIONS HAVE THOSE KIND
OF FUNDS AVAILABLE TO COVER TO
HELP ASSIST IN THE I MEAN THE
DIRE CONDITIONS THAT MY
COLLEAGUE FROM GONDOLA JUST
IDENTIFIED AS A UNION
PARTICIPATING IN COVERING SOME
OF THEIR COST OF LIVING
EXPENSES. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. I THINK THE
SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ON
BEHALF OF THE WRITERS GUILD IS
YES. THE GUILD OVER THE YEARS
HAS TAKEN DONATIONS FROM THEIR
MEMBERSHIP AND FROM PHILANTHROPY
ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER
FOUNDATIONS TO BUILD UP A, UM, A
FUND THAT IS THERE FOR WORKERS
NOT ONLY WHEN THEY ARE FACED
WITH STRIKES, BUT WHENEVER THEY
HAVE OTHER SORT OF FINANCIAL
IMPACTS DUE TO NOT BEING ABLE TO
WORK. UM SO MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO
APPLY TO THAT FUND, BUT THERE IS
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THAT
FUND AS WELL. SO I WOULD SAY THE
MEMBERSHIP DOES TRY TO PUT
FORWARD UM THE ABILITY TO
SUPPORT THEIR MEMBERS WHEN THEY
NEED LOANS FOR CERTAIN THINGS OR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HOUSING
AND GAS AND FOOD AND THOSE KINDS
OF THINGS, SO WE THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON
FOR YEARS EVEN PRIOR TO THE
STRIKE. UM AND THAT IS HOW SOME
MEMBERS ARE GETTING THAT IS THAT
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TODAY, BUT
WE BELIEVE WE STILL BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE
YOU KNOW MORE STABILITY FOR THE
WORKER WHO IS NOT ABLE TO GET
PAID. WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SO THEY ARE GETTING SOME FORM OF
SUSTENANCE BUT IN FINANCIAL
SUBSTANCE IF THEY QUALIFY, BUT
THAT'S NOT AN UNLIMITED RESOURCE
, EITHER, RIGHT? THEY SORT OF
TRIED TO BUILD THAT UP OVER
TIME. BUT AS THE AS THINGS
CONTINUE ON, THAT'S NOT AN
UNLESS THEY QUALIFY. SO THERE
ARE CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS,
WHICH WHICH ARE MERITORIOUS, I
SUPPOSE, BUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DOESN'T HAVE ANY
CRITERIA IN TERMS OF ASSERTING
QUALIFICATIONS. THROUGH THE
CHAIR. UM, TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION. OF COURSE, WORK FROM
THE A F L BREAK FUNDS DEPEND ON
THE UNION. SOME HAVE THEM SOME
DON'T AFTER TWO WEEKS OF BEING
ON STRIKE. MANY STRIKE FUNDS ARE
ALREADY EXHAUSTED. THAT'S WHEN
THIS BILL WOULD KICK IN AFTER
TWO WEEKS. WE DON'T CHANGE THE
SPILL DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL THE
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT
ALREADY EXIST AT E. D. D. IT
DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, SO
A WORKER WHO APPLIES THEY STILL
HAVE THE ONE WEEK UNPAID WAITING
PERIOD. THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH
ALL OF THE ELIGIBILITY AT E. D.
D INCLUDING THE TWO WEEK
REPORTING WHERE THEY REPORT ANY
INCOME, WHETHER IT'S EARNED OR
OTHERWISE. AND SO E. D D WOULD
TAKE THAT INFORMATION. IF THERE
WAS ANY INCOME FROM OTHER
SOURCES. THEY WOULD REPORT THAT
SO THERE'S ALREADY A BUILT IN
PROCESS THAT E D. D AND WE DON'T
THIS BILL DOESN'T CHANGE THAT
THAT WORKER WHO WAS ON STRIKE
WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
SAME QUALIFICATION ELIGIBILITY
AND REPORTING. UM AS EVERY ANY
OTHER UNEMPLOYED WORKERS. OKAY,
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION. I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. AND I THINK I WOULD
ALSO ADD TO THAT THIS HAS BEEN A
STRIKE THAT'S BEEN ON SINCE MAY
OF EARLIER THIS YEAR. AND AS A
SENATOR MENTIONED IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT THAT NORMALLY THE
STRIKES ARE TWO WEEKS
APPROXIMATELY, AND SO WE'RE
ALREADY IN UNCHARTERED LAND. AND
SO THE STUDIOS UNDERSTAND, AND I
THINK IT'S BEEN WIDELY REPORTED.
HAVE SAID BASICALLY THAT THEY'LL
LET IT GO AS LONG AS IT NEEDS TO
FORCE THESE WORKERS INTO
HOMELESS CONDITIONS AND THAT
SEEMS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE
FOR THIS LEGISLATURE TO PAY
ATTENTION BECAUSE OF THE VERY
THINGS THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT
NOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT ON
SMALL BUSINESSES. IT'S GOING TO
IMPACT ON THE LIVELIHOOD OF SO
MANY OF THESE WORKERS WHO HAVE
FAMILIES. THEY'RE NOT STARS THAT
YOU SEE ON TELEVISION. THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO WORK BEHIND THE
SCENES WHO HAVE A LIVELIHOOD, A
SKILL TRADECRAFT, AND NOW
THEY'RE BEING DENIED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PAY THAT IS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE WORK AND
THE REVENUES THAT ARE COMING IN
TO THE STUDIOS AND SO WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT THE MINDSET IS
ALL ON THE WORKER TO END THIS IS
NOT UH, FAIR. IT'S NOT REAL, IN
TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE UP AGAINST
. THEY NEED TO HAVE A WILLING
PARTNER. THAT ACROSS THE TABLE.
BARGAIN FAIRLY AND COME UP WITH
A DEAL SO THAT THESE WORKERS CAN
GET BACK TO DOING WHAT THEY'RE
TRAINED TO DO SO THAT THE SMALL
BUSINESSES CAN GET BACK TO
REALIZING THE BENEFIT OF HOW
THAT ECONOMIC ENGINE HAS NOW
BEEN. ENERGIZED AGAIN. UM SO
THERE'S A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY.
I THINK THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY TO
ADDRESS UH, CONDITIONS THAT HAVE
GONE BEYOND WHATEVER NORMAL AND
HAVE NOW EXTENDED INTO AN
ABNORMAL PLACE THAT, UH MANY
PEOPLE COULD FIND THEMSELVES AND
A PLACE OF BEING ON HOUSED. NO I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. BUT
WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO SMALL
BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESSES
CURRENTLY BEING ASSESSED BY THE
CITY, CALIFORNIA TO PAY DOWN
THAT FRAUDULENT. COST OF I E. D
D DURING COVID, THE 20 OR 30
BILLION. THERE'S NEVER BEEN A
CLARIFYING NUMBER. I SYMPATHIZE
CERTAINLY WITH THE SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY
THE CURRENT STRIKE, BUT WHO'S
PAYING DOWN THAT DEBT? SMALL
BUSINESS? ALL BUSINESS IS PAYING
FOR THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT IT'S COMING FROM
RIGHT AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT WE'RE HERE EVEN
LOOKING AT THIS AS A SOLUTION
BECAUSE OF PROTRACTED
NEGOTIATION THAT DID NOT HAVE TO
TAKE US TO THIS PLACE. I THINK I
SAW BRYANT AND THEN HEART. AND
THEN THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I
WANT TO THANK HMM. MY COLLEAGUE
AND THE AUTHOR, UH, FOR BEING
HERE. CALIFORNIA IS ON ITS WAY
TO BEING THE FOURTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. UM OUR
NATIONAL ECONOMY IS REBOUNDING
ROBUSTLY FROM THE PANDEMIC. AND
YET IT'S ONE OF THE MOST HOSTILE
TIMES IN CALIFORNIA'S HISTORY
FOR WORKERS. I REPRESENT.
ANGELES WHERE WE HAVE HOTEL
WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN ON STRIKE
FOR AN UNGODLY AMOUNT OF TIME
FIGHTING FOR FAIR WAGES. WE HAVE
SITUATIONS WHERE ARE JANITORS IN
THE CITY HAD TO GO OFF FOR A DAY
WERE CLASSIFIED SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
HAVE HAD TO STEP OFF WHERE
TEACHERS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR
THE BASIC PAY THAT THEY NEED. I
REPRESENT THREE OF THE MAJOR
STUDIOS IN THESE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE STRIKES ARE HAPPENING
RIGHT NOW, BUT EVEN MORE
IMPORTANTLY, I REPRESENT ALL OF
THE WORKERS. WHO DON'T HAVE THE
DIGNITY WHO DON'T HAVE THE
RESPECT WHO DON'T HAVE THE PAY
EQUITY THAT THEY NEED AND THAT
THEY DESERVE. WE WOULD NOT BE IN
THIS SITUATION. IF THERE WERE
GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS TAKING
PLACE, BUT WHAT IS NOT IN GOOD
FAITH IS WHEN YOU HAVE LEADERS
ON ONE SIDE OF THE NEGOTIATING
NEGOTIATIONS, SAYING, WE WILL
LITERALLY STARVE YOU AND PUT YOU
INTO HOMELESSNESS. WE WILL GO
UNTIL THEY LOSE THEIR HOMES.
THAT'S AN ASYMMETRIC NEGOTIATION
THAT IS POLLING THE BARGAINING
POWER AWAY FROM WORKING PEOPLE.
THAT IS NOT FAIR. THAT IS NOT
RIGHT. THAT IS NOT JUST IN
STRIKE FUNDS CAN'T COVER ALL OF
THAT. YOU CAN'T ASK THE WORKERS
TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN LIVELIHOODS
AT A TIME WHEN THEY WERE BEING
TREATED AS SOMETHING LESS THAN
THAN A WILLING PARTNER OR THE
CORE BASE THAT HAS BUILT UP
THESE ENORMOUS REVENUES AND
PROFITS THAT OTHERS ARE REAPING
AND SEVEN FIGURE AND EIGHT
FIGURE SUMS ANNUALLY. THAT'S WHY
WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL IS
IMPORTANT. AND MR CHAIR. IF
THERE IS AN EMOTION TO MOVE IT,
I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE IT. HER
HEART. I THINK THE AUTHOR VERY
ELOQUENTLY DESCRIBED THE TIPPING
POINT THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IN
REGARDS TO LABOR RELATIONS, AND
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ALSO FRAMED
THE ISSUE REALLY WELL IN REGARDS
TO THE IMPACT ON WORKERS AND
FAMILIES AND THE THREAT TO THEM
ACTIVELY. THAT'S ONGOING. NOW UM
, HERE IN THIS ROLE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ARE LENSES, THE
FISCAL LENS SO I WANT TO ALSO
HIGHLIGHT THE BILL ANALYSIS THAT
SAYS THAT THE STRUCTURAL, UM
FISCAL INSTABILITY OF THE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND IS A
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. IT'S REAL, UM
THE ANALYSIS OF THE BILL SAYS
THAT THE FUND IS A FUND BALANCES
SUFFICIENT TO US IS THE FUND IS
UNABLE TO SELF CORRECT AND
ACHIEVE A FUND BALANCE
SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND AN
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, INDICATING
THAT THE SCENARIO OF THE $18
BILLION DEFICIT COULD REPEAT
ITSELF IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S A
CONCERNING BACKED. I THINK IT'S
UM THE FOLKS WHO TESTIFIED MADE
NOTE THAT THIS IS A RELATIVELY
INSIGNIFICANT COSTS IN RELATION
TO THE FULL PROGRAM THAT
PROBABLY IS TRUE LOOKING
BACKWARD IN HISTORIC TIME IF THE
AUTHORS CORRECT AND WE'RE
LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT FUTURE,
THAT MAY NOT BE QUITE THE SAME
RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT'S
SOMETHING WE NEED TO CONSIDER
CAREFULLY. I'LL BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL TODAY. BUT, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO HAVE
THIS BILL THROUGH THE SENATE AND
HAD THE VOTES ON THE SENATE SIDE
AND THE PROCESS. GOING THROUGH
THE FULL COMMITTEE REVIEW RATHER
THAN HAVING IT, YOU KNOW, COME
TO THIS BODY FIRST. UM BUT HERE
WE ARE, AND WE'LL PROCEED AHEAD
AS WE ARE. OKAY THANK YOU. UM
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR. I WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR FOR HIS REMARKS AND LEADER
BRIAN FOR HIS REMARKS. I'M GOING
TO ECHO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HART'S
COMMENTS AND ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, AND
I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS
TODAY. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW,
UM, BUT IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE
THAT WAY. UH I RECOGNIZE APPLY
TO STRIKING WORKERS. NO QUESTION
ABOUT IT. UM, MY CONCERN IS WHAT
HAPPENS IF WE HAVE ANOTHER
PANDEMIC. AND WE GOT PEOPLE OUT
ON THE STRIKE. WHO STANDS IN
LINE FIRST, SO SOMETHING MAYBE
THE AUTHOR MIGHT WANT TO THINK
ABOUT IS IF WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT
CHOICE IN THE TIME OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND
WE HAVE A FUND THAT MIGHT BE, UM
, INSOLVENT. IS THERE SOME SORT
OF TRIGGER WHERE THIS IT DOESN'T
CHANGE THE PLIGHT OF STRIKING
WORKERS. BUT WHEN WE GOT A
PANDEMIC, YOU KNOW I REPRESENTED
A DISTRICT THAT'S GOT HEAVY
EMPLOYMENT DUE TO THE SAN
FRANCISCO AIRPORT, AND YOU KNOW,
LIKE LARA FRIEDMAN MENTIONED I
MEAN, I WAS STANDING IN FOOD
LINES, GIVING OUT FOOD TO PEOPLE
THAT WERE WORKING THE AIRPORT
WORKING THE HOTELS, WHATEVER IT
MAY HAVE BEEN DURING THE
PANDEMIC WHEN TIMES WERE SO
UNCERTAIN. SO MY QUESTION OR MY
THOUGHT OR SOMETHING WE MIGHT
WANT TO THINK ABOUT IS WHEN WE
GET INTO THAT TIME WHEN WE'VE
GOT STRIKING WORKERS, AND WE'VE
GOT A PANDEMIC WHERE PEOPLE ARE
JUST LOST EVERYTHING. UM I'M
WONDERING IF THERE SHOULDN'T BE
A TRIGGER OR SOMETHING ALONG
THOSE LINES. IT DOESN'T CHANGE
THE PLIGHT OF THE STRIKING
WORKER. I UNDERSTAND, BUT ONE
MUST LOOK AT THINGS IN THE
OVERALL CONTEXT OF WHITE WHAT
MIGHT BE HAPPENING AT ANY POINT
IN TIME, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE
I STAND ON IT, BUT I WANT TO
THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR WORK.
AND YOU KNOW, I WATCH TV AND I'M
NOT CRAZY ABOUT RERUNS. I'LL
ADMIT IT, BUT I ALSO WATCHED
WITH INTEREST AS THE STRIKE GOES
ON AND ON AND ON, AND I HEAR
ABOUT THE HOTEL WORKERS IN L A,
TOO. SO I'M AWARE OF ALL OF
THAT, AND IT'S NOT AN EASY
POSITION TO BE IN. BUT ANYWAY,
I'M LOOKING FOR THAT TRIGGER.
MAYBE THANK YOU. THANK YOU WILL
LOOK TO WILSON CARILLO
LOWENTHAL. THANK YOU, SENATOR
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS
AREA, AND I UNDERSTAND THE
PLIGHT OF THE STRIKING WORKER
AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE THAT RIGHT, UM, TO
ENSURE PROPER WAGES. UM, SAFE
WORKING CONDITIONS AND ALL THE
REASONS WHY PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED
TO GO ON STRIKE. I DO HAVE A FEW
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS OR TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS BECAUSE I DID THINK
THE DEPARTMENT A FINANCE WAS
GOING TO BE HERE. AND I NOTED
THAT THE CHAIR, UM SAID THEY
DIDN'T HAVE A FILE AND I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANT. AND
SO I WONDERED IF HE COULD
PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON WHY
THEY'RE NOT HEARING WHAT NOT
HAVING A FILE MEANS FIRST. IT
JUST MEANS THAT THEY HAD NOT
DONE WELL PROVIDED THE
INFORMATION THAT WE NORMALLY IN
IT AND A LOT OF BILLS THAT COME
TO THE COMMITTEE. THERE IS NOT A
FILE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE THAT THERE IS SOME
ISSUES AND CONCERNS HERE. BUT
THEY DID NOT CONTACT US TO SAY
THAT THEY HAD SOMETHING THAT
THEY WANTED TO PUT FORTH ON THE
RECORD TO SOUNDS GOOD. I JUST
BEEN SO USED TO SEEING THEM
HERE, SO I WAS JUST SURPRISED
BECAUSE I HAD A FOLLOW UP
QUESTION ON TO THAT. BUT IT WAS
NOTED, UM BY ONE OF THE
WITNESSES THAT IT DOESN'T
LEVERAGE. AND UM OVER LEVERAGED
THE FUND AND PARTICULARLY IN
RELATION TO THAT THE NUMBER OF
STRIKES THAT GO BEYOND THE TWO
WEEKS THAT THE BILL ALLOWS FOR
AS WELL AS, UM, THE NUMBER OF,
UH EMPLOYEES THAT ARE STRIKING
IN GREATER TO THE WHOLE AND
UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE
THINGS I WAS CONFUSED BY AND IF
YOU CAN CLARIFY FROM THE AUTHOR
IS TYPICALLY WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE. UM THERE IS A 26
WEEK, CAP. UM TYPICALLY AND
THEN, WITH THE PANDEMIC, WE
EXPANDED BEYOND THIS IN THE
LANGUAGE NOTES TWO WEEKS
FOLLOWING THE END OF THE TRADES
TO DISPUTE, SO DOES THAT IGNORE
THE 26 WEEK CAP? OR DOES THAT IN
TERMS OF COST TO THE FUND. MM
HMM. MEANS THAT IF YOU GO BACK
TO WORK AFTER ONE WEEK, YOU
DON'T QUALIFY FOR THE
UNEMPLOYMENT. YOU HAVE TO BE ON
STRIKE FOR AT LEAST TWO WEEKS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
TIME THIS. SO IF THE STREET
LET'S SAY THE STRIKE TOOK A
WHOLE YEAR, 52 WEEKS WOULD YOUR
ELIGIBILITY BE FOR 52 WEEKS OR
FOR 26 WEEKS WHAT THE NORMAL
DOES NOT CHANGE. DOES NOT CHANGE
THE CURRENT LAW. SO IT IS JUST
26 WEEKS, OKAY? SOUNDS GOOD, AND
THEN ANOTHER PART OF THE
UNEMPLOYMENT. SURE, IT'S WHAT I
BELIEVE IS STILL IN PLACES THAT,
UM, ELIGIBILITY TO WORK. UM AND
SO THIS WOULD DOESN'T CHANGE ANY
OF ANY ANY OF THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS. ANY OF THE IF YOU
HAVE OTHER INSIDE, STILL HAVE TO
LOOK FOR EMPLOYMENT WHILE ON
STRIKE. AND SO THEY STILL
COULDN'T RECEIVE THE BENEFIT.
AND THE COST TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT
FUND WITH THE REALITY OF IT IS,
IF YOU'RE ON STRIKE, THERE'S
THERE IS NO THERE IS NO
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WHILE YOU'RE
ON STRIKE. SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
TO GO TO ANOTHER STATE TO GO
FUND. SO THAT PROVISION? YES.
OKAY SO THAT DOES RIGHT NOW,
CURRENT. ABSENT THE LAW, CURRENT
PERSON RECEIVING ELIGIBILITY
INSURANCE WOULD HAVE TO SEEK
EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO KEEP
THEIR BENEFIT. BUT SOMEONE IN A
TRADE DISPUTE WOULD NOT IN THAT
TRADE, CORRECT, BUT IF THEY GOT
ANOTHER JOB, THEN THEY WOULD BE
WORKING SO THEY WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT. SO
LET'S SAY IF YOU WERE A STRIKING
WRITER, AND YOU WENT AND BECAME
GOT A JOB AT A RESTAURANT. THEN
YOU WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE
FOR YOUR UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE
YOU'D BE WORKING AT A
RESTAURANT. I GUESS MAYBE I'M
SAYING YOU CAN'T SEEK WORK
BECAUSE YOU'RE ON STRIKE FROM IN
THAT TRADE. THAT'S A DIFFERENT
SCENARIO. BECAUSE THAT BECAUSE
THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WOULD BE
EXEMPTED FROM THAT, UM, PART OF
THE ELIGIBLE THIS AS YOU ARE
SEEKING WORK SO THEY WOULD ALL
OF THE SAME ELIGIBILITY FOR YOU
. I APPLIES SO EVEN YOU STILL
HAVE TO HAVE THE GOOD CAUSE
THERE HAS TO BE A REAL AND
SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPELLING
REASON FOR LEAVING WORK. UM AND
YOU DO HAVE TO BE ABLE AND
AVAILABLE TO SEEK WORK. UM YOU
MY COLLEAGUE RIGHT HERE, JUST
SAID THAT SOME OF THE WRITERS
ARE NOW DRIVING FOR UBER AND
LIFT, SO ALL OF THE SAME
REQUIREMENTS APPLY AND E. D D IS
USED TO THIS BECAUSE OUR CODE
ALREADY ALLOWS. IF YOU'RE A
SUBPOENA TO BE A WITNESS IN A
TRIAL OR YOUR INJURY DUTY OR
THERE'S CASES AROUND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, SO THERE'S ALREADY HE
SAYS, WHERE THERE'S KIND OF NOT
THE NORMAL BEING LAID OFF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR UI AND BUT STILL
NEED TO MEET ALL OF THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA THAT
APPLIED TO OTHER WORK. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. AND JUST TO NOTE,
YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HEARTS CONCERNS
ABOUT THE YOU KNOW THE FACT THAT
OUR UI IS OVER LEVERAGED THE
INVESTMENT THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE
IN TERMS OF THE FLOWN THAT'S OUT
. UM AND SO WE ARE CHANGING THE
WAY IT WORKS, AND I THINK THAT
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY MAYBE IN
FUTURE LEGISLATION TO CONTINUE
TO LOOK AT THE BEST WAY TO DO
THIS, UM, FOR OTHER WORKERS,
INCLUDING THOSE THAT HAVE ARE,
YOU KNOW THAT ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE
FIRED BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
THERE'S LOTS OF ISSUES WITH
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FIRED
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN,
EVEN THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SOME
JUST CAUSE THAT'S NOTED IN THEIR
FILE, AND SO I DO THINK, UM,
THAT WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS
PROGRAM OVERALL AND WOULD HAVE
PREFERRED TO SEE IT GO THROUGH
POLICY COMMITTEES. TO HAVE THOSE
TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS BUT
RECOGNIZE THE URGENCY THAT
PEOPLE HAVE WITH THIS AND, UM,
LOOK FORWARD TO IT GOING THROUGH
THOSE POLICY DISCUSSIONS ON THE
OTHER SIDE, THANKS. THANK YOU.
AMERICA REAL. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR, AND I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR MORE PROUD CO AUTHOR OF
THIS POLICY AND THANK THE
WITNESSES FOR THEIR TESTIMONY.
THROUGH A I JUST WANT TO SHARE A
BIT MORE ON THE FISCAL, UM,
CONVERSATION. THE LAST THREE
YEARS OF THE PANDEMIC REALLY
SHOWED THAT CALIFORNIA SAFETY
NET DIDN'T WORK FOR EVERYONE.
AND WHAT IT ALSO SHOWED THAT
DESPITE A STATE AUDITORS AUDIT
MORE THAN 10 TO 12 YEARS AGO
THAT RECOMMENDED THAT THE SYSTEM
BE COMPLETELY OVERHAULED BECAUSE
IT WOULD NOT BE PREPARED TO TAKE
ON A CATASTROPHE. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ACTUALLY DID NOTHING
. AND SO WHEN THE PANDEMIC DID
HIT THE STATE LOST $32 BILLION
IN FRAUD BECAUSE WE WERE
OPERATING UNDER A SYSTEM THAT'S
NOT UH, UP TO SPEED OR UP TO PAR
WITH WHERE WE ARE TECHNOLOGY
WISE AND CERTAINLY WASN'T
PREPARED TO TAKE ON THE NEED.
DURING THE PANDEMIC, SO IF WE
COULD LOSE $32 BILLION TO FRAUD
BECAUSE THE STATE DID NOT TAKE
THE NECESSARY STEPS TO UPDATE
VERY ANTIQUATED SYSTEMS WITHIN E
D. D THAT WE HAVE NOW COMPLETELY
REVAMPED AND ARE MOVING FORWARD
WITH NEW REVITALIZATION ON THE
TECHNOLOGY FRONT. WE CAN
CERTAINLY DO MORE FOR WORKERS
WHO ARE ON STRIKE, WHO NEED THAT
SAFETY NET TO WORK FOR THEM. SO
SIMPLY RELATED TO THE FISCAL
IMPACT. I WOULD SAY THAT IF THE
STATE CAN LOSE $32 BILLION IN
FRAUD, IT CAN CERTAINLY USE
THOSE FUNDS TO PAY WORKERS AND
BUILD ON OUR UI FUND. TO ENSURE
THAT THERE'S A SAFETY NET THAT
WORKS FOR EVERYONE. THANK
GOODNESS. WE ARE NOW MOVING PAST
THAT AND THE E. D D S SYSTEM AND
OTHER SYSTEMS. WILL BE UPDATED
AND IT'S GOING TO COST THE STATE
MORE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND IT
WOULD HAVE COST HAD IT BEEN DONE
10 12 YEARS AGO, BUT IT'S JUST
THE STATE OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
SO JUST SHARING SOME SOME LIGHT
WHEN IT COMES TO THE FINANCIAL
AND FISCAL IMPACT TO THE STATE.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
ELEMENTAL. YES I'LL JUST BE VERY
BRIEF. I WANT TO COMMEND THE
AUTHOR. I WANT TO COMMEND THE
BILL SPONSORS AND THE VERY
THOUGHTFUL DIALOGUE UP HERE. UM
AND YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING
HEAVILY ABOUT THE COMMENTS MADE
BY MY COLLEAGUE NEXT TO ME FROM
LOS ANGELES ABOUT THE UNDERLYING
REASONS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
AND I, UH ENCOURAGE THE BILL
SPONSORS. Tð GOING FORWARD. HELP
US TAKE A HOLISTIC LOOK AT WHAT
THE COSTS ARE. UH, THE DRAIN ON
ALL THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET
SERVICES THAT ARE TAKING PLACE
RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE AREN'T PAYING
A WAGE, WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET BY
UH, AND WHAT THAT DOES AND TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NEWPORT BEACH,
WHO ALSO MADE VERY THOUGHTFUL
COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS THE COST
OF SMALL BUSINESS AND SO FORTH.
I YOU KNOW, CHALLENGE YOU TO
LOOK AT. WHAT IS THE COST? UH,
THAT WE'RE PAYING RIGHT NOW ON
THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET SERVICES.
AND ON THE BACK SIDE ON THE
OTHER SIDE. OF WHAT HAPPENS
AFTER A SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CONTRACT
NEGOTIATION AND RECEIVING
INADEQUATE CONTRACT. IS THERE
LESS OF A DRAIN ON SOCIAL SAFETY
NET SERVICES? AND CAN WE LOOK AT
THAT? AND NOT JUST THE COST ON
THE UI FUND ITSELF, BUT THE
BENEFITS THAT WE HAVE FROM
PAYING HIGHER WAGES AND WHAT
THAT DOES TO TAXPAYERS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES SO VERY PROUD TO VOTE
FOR THE VOTE VOTE FOR THIS
TODAY, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE
A MORE HOLISTIC. LOOK AT THE
ECONOMICS OF THIS ALL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SIMILAR MEMBER
WEBER AND THEN CALDERON. THANK
YOU CHAIR. UM I WASN'T PLANNING
ON ASKING ANY QUESTIONS. BUT THE
ANSWER TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON JUST MADE ME EVEN MORE
CONFUSED. AND MAYBE THIS IS ONE
OF THE REASONS WHY GOING THROUGH
A POLICY COMMITTEE TO HAVE THESE
IN DEPTH DISCUSSIONS AND
EVALUATIONS IS A GOOD POINT. SO
IF SOMEONE IS STRIKING. DO THEY
STILL HAVE TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENT OF ACTUALLY LOOKING
FOR A JOB? THE BILL DOES NOT
CHANGE ANY OF THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS. ALL IT DOES IS SAY
THAT IF YOU ARE AFTER TWO WEEKS
OF A TRADE DISPUTE, WORKERS
ENTER THE REGULAR PROCESS AND
HAVE TO MEET THE UI ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS. SO THE ANSWER IS
YES, THEY STILL WOULD NEED TO
MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF SHOWING
PROOF THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY
LOOKING FOR A JOB. OKAY THANK
YOU. UM AND YOU KNOW I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL HERE IN
APPROACH, BUT I DO WANT TO ECHO
. UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HEARTS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUND. UM YOU
KNOW, AND THE SOLVENCY? AYE.
WHEN YOU MADE YOUR ANALOGY OF
IT'S ALREADY UM, THIS ISN'T
GOING TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, OR OR
SIGNIFICANTLY MAKE IT WORSE.
IMMEDIATELY WENT INTO MY MEDICAL
MODE THINKING AND YOU KNOW, JUST
BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS LUNG CANCER
DOESN'T MEAN THAT I WANT YOU TO
CONTINUE TO SMOKE, SO JUST
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THE
NEGATIVE DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE
SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY JUST
CONTINUE TO PULL FROM IT. BUT,
UM, AGAIN, THOSE WERE JUST KIND
OF CONVERSATIONS THAT PROBABLY
NEED TO BE HAD AND HOPEFULLY
WILL CONTINUE TO BE HAVE IT'S A
SPORT MOVES FORWARD. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH TO THE AUTHOR. UM,
YOU KNOW, I THINK ALL OF US
APPEAR. UM ARE VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE
STRIKES. WHY IT'S TAKING SO
LONG. AND UM, YOU KNOW, VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT
IT'S HAVING ON THOSE WORKERS AND
THEIR FAMILIES. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS UP SO WE CAN HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION. I WILL NOW
TURN TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CALDERON, WHO ALSO CHAIRS
INSURANCE, AND THIS BILL DIDN'T
MAKE ITS WAY THROUGH. EXCUSE ME
THAT POLICY COMMITTEE SO NOW
WE'RE STANDING THE COMPACTNESS
OF ALL OF THIS. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO YOUR COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. UM JUST WANT TO SAY THAT.
YOU KNOW, THIS BILL DID COME TO
MY COMMITTEE. UM AND I WAS HAPPY
TO HEAR IT. I THINK WE HAD A
REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION ON BOTH
SIDES. AND I THINK IT WAS VERY
TRANSPARENT. AND I TUNE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT STRIKING WORKERS
. MY LIVE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND YOU KNOW THAT'S TOP OF THE
FOLD FRONT PAGE EVERY DAY, AND
IT'S IS A REAL PEOPLE WHO CAN'T
PUT FOOD ON THEIR TABLE CAN'T
PAY THEIR MORTGAGES. AND IT IT
REALLY DISTRESSES ME. AND SO I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR YOUR COURAGE AND LEADERSHIP
AND BRINGING THIS AS YOUR
FORWARD AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING
THIS TODAY. THANK YOU SIMILAR
MEMBER DIXON. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR JUST HAD TO FOLLOW
QUESTIONS JUST TO BE CLEAR ON UM
, I APPRECIATE THE SOMEONE WOMEN
FROM LOS ANGELES TALKING ABOUT
THE STRUCTURE AND OTHERS HAVE
TALKED ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL
DEFICIT WITH THE UNEMPLOYMENT
FUND. IT'S NOT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THAT IS PAYING OUT
THESE BENEFITS OF THE
FRAUDULENT. THE $32 BILLION
FRAUDULENT PAYMENTS. AS FAR AS I
KNOW, AND I WISH SOMEBODY FROM
FINANCE. WE'RE HERE TO CLARIFY
THAT IT'S BUSINESS. ALL BUSINESS
HAS BEEN ASSESSED. TO PAY THAT
$32 BILLION, SO THERE ARE
MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY PAYMENTS
THAT BUSINESS LARGE AND SMALL
PAYS TO PAYS TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO COVER THAT $32
BILLION DEFICIT, SO IT'S NOT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS CHARGING BUSINESS
TO RECOVER THOSE FUNDS. AND THAT
IS A TREMENDOUS BURDEN ON
BUSINESS THAT, IRONICALLY
AFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO OPERATE
AND HIRE MORE PEOPLE AND SUSTAIN
THEIR BUSINESS. SO UH, THIS IS
SITUATION. SADLY IT'S A VERY
EMOTIONAL SITUATION THAT WE'RE
ALLOWING EMOTIONS FOR THE
HARDWORKING PEOPLE WHO ARE
STRIKING AND HAVE A RIGHT TO
STRIKE. TO DICTATE LAW IN
CALIFORNIA THAT IS GOING TO
CREATE MORE STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A FISCAL
COMMITTEE WE ARE THE FISCAL
COMMITTEE. WHY WE'RE NOT DOING
THAT KIND OF ANALYSIS, SO IT'S
CONCERNING THAT WE LAY ON ALL OF
US, UH, THIS IMPORTANT
DISCUSSION RELATING TO REAL
PEOPLE GOING THROUGH DIFFICULT
TIMES, AND WE'RE CHANGING,
PROPOSING TO CHANGE CALIFORNIA
LAW THAT WILL GO BEYOND THIS
PARTICULAR STRIKING SITUATION,
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WE SHOULD PAUSE AND REALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE REALLY
SOLIDIFY AND PROPOSING TO
SOLIDIFY IN STATE LAW. THANK
YOU. LET ME JUST, YOU KNOW, I'LL
TURN TO THE AUTHOR OF HE HAS
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FIRST. I
THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS MEETING WAS CALLED VERY
QUICKLY SO THAT WE COULD BE IN A
POSITION TO RECEIVE THE BILL AND
TO GIVE SOME FORM OF ANALYSIS,
WHICH WE'VE DONE. THE COMMITTEE
HAS PRESENTED THAT FOR THE
COMMUNITY TO REVIEW IT'S CLEAR
THAT THERE ARE PRESSURE POINTS
ON THE FUN BEEN STIPULATED. IT'S
IN THE REPORT. WE ALSO RECOGNIZE
THAT IF THIS WITHIN WHAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW, UM AS
WAS PRESENTED AND TESTIMONY
BECOMES A MINUSCULE, MINUSCULE
IMPACT ON THE PHONE. WE TALK IN
THE CONTEXT RIGHTFULLY SO OF
WHAT OUR POTENTIAL ISSUES THAT
COULD COME UP THAT WE DIDN'T SEE
A PANDEMIC COMING. WE DIDN'T SEE
OTHER AND WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO
THOSE. AND HOW IS THIS FUN?
PREPARED TO RESPOND? AND WE
RECOGNIZE THAT IF SOMETHING WERE
TO BE AGAIN ADDED TO THE IMPACT
THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT IT
WOULD BE A PROBLEM. THERE WE
HAVEN'T FORBID. BUT IF WE HAD
ANOTHER PANDEMIC, OR EVEN IF YOU
DIDN'T HAVE A PANDEMIC, WE HAD
SOME OTHER IMPACT THAT WOULD
FORCE BUSINESSES OR WORKERS TO
BE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY WERE
NOT BEING PRODUCTIVE. THEN WE
WOULD HAVE A CHALLENGE THAT WE
WOULD NEED TO DEAL WITH. THAT
GOES BEYOND WHERE WE ARE TODAY
WHERE WE ARE TODAY. BASED ON
WHAT THE BILL IS DESIGNED TO DO
IS ADDRESS NEEDS OF WORKERS
TODAY, GIVEN THIS PROTRACTED
NEGOTIATIONS THAT ARE GOING
FORWARD. THE IMPACT IS
MINISCULE. THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE
AS I SAID, BECAUSE THEY FOUND
OUT AT THE LAST MOMENT AND THEY
ARE DEALING WITH THE BUDGET AND
OTHER, UH, ISSUES THAT WOULD PUT
THEM IN A DIFFICULT PLACE TO
BRING SOMEONE HERE TODAY, EVEN
IF THEY WERE HERE, THEY IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING. THEY DON'T HAVE A
FILE. AND SO AS THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD, MEMBERS MAY STILL HAVE
QUESTIONS MAY MEMBERS MAY STILL
HAVE CONCERNS OF THERE WILL BE
OPPORTUNITY TO AS THE AUTHOR AND
OTHERS WILL BE ABLE TO HOPEFULLY
HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
THOUGHTS ALONG THOSE LINES. BUT
UH IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO
HAVE THE FULLNESS OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION THAN WHAT WE
PRESENTED IN THE ANALYSIS, WHICH
REMEMBER HARD AND OTHERS HAVE
CALLED OUT AND WE ALL HAD A
CHANCE TO REVIEW WE ARE OUT OF
PLACE WHERE WE HAVE UH,
PROPOSAL. DESIGNED TO MEET THE
NEED. A CRITICAL NEED. WHERE WE
HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE
INCREASE IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE ENDING UP ON HOMELESS
CONDITIONS. DO WE DO NOTHING AND
JUST LET THAT HAPPEN, OR DO WE
DO SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY WILL
HELP? FILL THE GAP TO GET TO A
PLACE WHERE THERE CAN BE
RECONCILIATION AND UNDERSTANDING
AND GET TO AN AGREEMENT THAT
ENDS THE STRIKES, SENATOR THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I
WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE CHAIR FOR
HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING TO HAVE
THIS ROBUST CONVERSATION VERSUS
DOING IT LAST WEEK ATTACHED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS REGULAR
SCHEDULE, SO I THINK THAT
BROUGHT US HERE TODAY SO WE
COULD HAVE THIS ROBUST
CONVERSATION. I WANT TO
COMPLIMENT THE CHAIR OF THE
INSURANCE COMMISSION COMMITTEE
AS WELL BECAUSE THERE WAS A
ROBUST CONVERSATION AT THE
POLICY COMMITTEE ON THIS BILL.
UM TWO WEEKS AGO, AND SO THIS
BILL HAS BEEN VETTED. IT'S NOT A
NEW IDEA. WE KNOW THAT IN NEW
YORK AND NEW JERSEY THEY ARE
DOING THIS. WE KNOW THAT IN
CALIFORNIA. THIS BILL HAS GONE
THROUGH THE SYSTEM. BEFORE SO
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS
CAUGHT ANYBODY BY SURPRISE. WHAT
IT IS DOING IS TAKING THIS
MOMENT IN TIME, THIS MOMENT IN
TIME WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT
UNREST WITHIN OUR WORKING LABOR
FORCE, WHERE MANY TRADITIONAL
CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIES ARE
UNDERGOING THEIR OWN CHANGING
BUSINESS MODEL, THEIR OWN CHANGE
AND HOW THEY FUNCTION. FROM A
DISTRIBUTION PERSPECTIVE AS WE
SEE, UH, THE PANDEMIC OVER AND
WE SEE THE ECONOMY COMING BACK.
WE'RE SEEING MANY OR
CORPORATIONS, MANY BUSINESSES
SEEING ROBUST TIMES AND SO IT'S
ACCEPTABLE, UNDERSTANDABLE AND
FRANKLY NEEDED FOR THAT LABOR
FORCE TO SAY WAIT A MINUTE AS WE
MOVE FORWARD. UNDER THESE NEW
ECONOMIC SITUATIONS. WHAT DOES
THAT MEAN FOR ME? WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN? FOR OUR FAMILY? HOW ARE WE
GOING TO PUT FOOD ON OUR TABLE
AND THRIVE AND HAVE A PIECE OF
THE SUCCESS GOING FORWARD? AND
SO THAT'S WHY THIS SNAPSHOT IN
TIME. THIS IS THE PERFECT TIME
TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. WHAT
THIS BILL DOES AT ITS HEART IS,
IT CREATES CERTAINTY. FOR THE
WORKFORCE DURING THAT TIME OF
LABOR UNREST, THAT CERTAINTY HAS
AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE FOR THE
OVERALL HEALTH AND WELFARE OF
ALL OF US AND SO THE ARGUMENT
THAT THIS PERSON IS GOING TO PAY
AND THIS PERSON IS GOING TO GET
THE BENEFIT. WE SEE THAT
ARGUMENT WHEN A SCHOOL PASSES A
SCHOOL BOND WHERE SOMEBODY MIGHT
SAY WELL, I DON'T HAVE KIDS IN
THE SCHOOL. WHY SHOULD I BUILD
THAT NEW GYMNASIUM OR THAT NEW
LIBRARY ON THE HIGH SCHOOL WHERE
SOMEBODY HAS A PARCEL TAX? DO UH
, TO HELP FIRST RESPONDERS AND
SOMEBODY SAYS, WELL, I'VE NEVER
CALLED THE POLICE OR I'VE NEVER
CALLED AND HAD THE FIREFIGHTERS
HAVE TO COME TO MY HOUSE.
THEY'VE GONE ACROSS THE STREET.
THE REASON WHY WE PAY INTO THE
COLLECTIVE BENEFIT IS WE ALL
COLLECTIVELY BENEFIT FROM THAT
CERTAINTY AND THAT SECURITY TO
KNOW THAT IF WE NEED HELP IT
WILL COME OR IF WE HAVE SOMEONE
WHO COMES TO OUR TOWN WHO'S
GOING TO GET AN EDUCATION AND
COLLECTIVELY BENEFITS ALL OF US
FROM HAVING A GOOD SCHOOL
FACILITY. THAT'S WHY WE PAY INTO
IT. NOT BECAUSE WE WANT THE
BENEFIT AT THAT MOMENT FOR
OURSELVES. WE WANT THE BENEFIT
FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR
SOCIETY AND OUR ECONOMY. THAT'S
WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE. THE
NUMBERS ARE YES, THE FUND HAS
ITS ISSUES. BUT THE NUMBERS ARE
NOT GOING TO EXACERBATE THAT
PROBLEM. AND FRANKLY PASSING
THIS BILL WILL LEAD TO THE
FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION OF HOW DO
WE MAKE THE SAFETY NET IS MY
COLLEAGUES FROM LOS ANGELES HAD
BROUGHT UP. HOW DO WE MAKE THE
SAFETY NET BE THERE AS A SAFETY
NET GOING FORWARD, THAT'S AN
APPROPRIATE CONVERSATION TO HAVE
. AND WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT FROM
A MACRO PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE
THIS IS JUST ONE ACUTE NEED.
THERE ARE MANY OTHERS. AND WE AS
A LEGISLATURE HAVE TO CONTINUE
TO LOOK AT HOW WE PROVIDE FOR
THOSE WHO NEED OUR HELP TO HELP
THEM PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
DOES. IT CREATES CERTAINTY. IT
SAYS TO THAT STRIKING WORKER
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE YOU
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FAIRLY
NEGOTIATE AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE
RESPECTED DURING THAT
NEGOTIATION, NOT DISRESPECTED
AND WAIT IT OUT. THAT'S WHAT
THIS BILL DOES. AND SO AGAIN. I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR. I WANT
TO THANK THE CHAIR OF THE
INSURANCE COMMITTEE AND THE
ROBUST CONVERSATION AND ALL OF
THOSE FOLKS WHO DRIVE AROUND
CALIFORNIA AND SEE FIRSTHAND
WHAT'S HAPPENING. INTO THE SMALL
BUSINESSES. IF WE PAY OUR
WORKERS A JUST FAIR WAGE.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE GOOD
CONSUMERS AND THEY'RE GOING TO
GO TO THOSE RESTAURANTS AND
THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THOSE RESTAURANTS DO WELL IN THE
SMALL BUSINESSES DO WELL BECAUSE
THEY'RE IN THE COMMUNITIES AS
WELL. SO TO ME, THIS IS A GOOD
COMMUNITY, GOOD NEIGHBOR BILL
AND GOOD FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM
ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS WILL
TAKE THAT AS YOUR CLOSED. THE
BILL IS OUT ON A B ROLL CALL.
THANK YOU. SENATOR EMBURGH. SP
35 DO PASS AS AMENDED. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR
YOUR PATIENTS. SP 35 IS SIMPLY
OH, YOU WANT TO HEAR ME? THERE
WE GO. ALRIGHT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIR MEMBERS SAYING
FOR YOUR PATIENTS, SP 35 IS
MERELY A CLEAN UP OF THE CARE
COURT. EXCUSE ME LEGISLATION
THAT WAS PASSED LAST YEAR AND I
VOTE. I'M NOT. WE'VE GOT A
NUMBER OF MOTIONS AND SECONDS.
SO, UM JUST THROW A HAND OUT
REAL QUICK, SO I CAN CALDERON
MOVED. CONDUCTOR. AND WILSON OR
WEBER. HOWEVER SECOND. WE'LL
TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND SUPPORT
HER OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS JOLIE ONODERA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES HERE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. A SCENE. NO COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE ORIGINALLY? VOTE
ON A ROLL CALL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OKAY I THINK OUR WORK IS
DONE FOR TODAY. SO WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS
NEED TO ADD ON WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE
GOOD. OKAY? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE LAW. WE'RE ADJOURNED.