Transcript Highlights:

• The law clearly outlines how membership is achieved for county employees and district employees.
• , and many other public employees.
• , and many other public employees.
• employees across the state.
• I was a classified employee.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement heard several retirement and school employment measures. SB 301 by Sen. Grayson would prevent CERL-covered cities and districts from amending retirement contracts to exclude certain employee groups, closing a loophole similar to one previously addressed for CalPERS. The bill was supported by California Professional Firefighters and received no opposition. SB 443 by Sen. Rubio would clarify that employees transferring into a joint powers authority can retain CalPERS classic status even when the JPA expands later; the city of La Verne, a flood management agency, and AFSCME supported the bill, and it also drew no opposition. Both bills were moved out of committee on unanimous votes and sent to Appropriations, with the consent calendar items SB 521, SB 581, and SB 853 also approved. The committee then heard SB 494 by Sen. Cortese, which would give classified school employees the right to have disciplinary appeals heard by an administrative law judge rather than by the school board. Supporters, including CSEA, AFSCME, and CFT, argued the bill would create parity with teachers and community college faculty and provide a fairer appeal process. Opponents, including the California School Boards Association, county superintendents, school business officials, and community college groups, argued it would remove local control, impose a one-size-fits-all process, and shift costs to districts. The bill was passed out of committee and referred to the Committee on Higher Education. The committee also considered SJR 2 by Sen. Cortese, a resolution urging Congress and the President to enact federal protections for classified school employees, including better wages, benefits, safety, and workplace rights. Support came from CFT, CSEA, and other labor groups, with no opposition. The resolution was adopted and moved forward. At the end of the hearing, the committee reopened the roll to add votes, and all listed measures ultimately passed unanimously or near-unanimously before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• for my employees.
• Additionally, they will be held responsible for replacing that employee when the employee is out.
• It's just the definition of an employee. I'm trying to figure out who is an employee.
• So we've got 590 employees times 0.17, that's about 100 employees. Thank you very much, Secretary.
• Employers are not providing employees with sick time. Employees have earned it.

Committee: House House Health & Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• I've been open since 2012, and I have five full-time employees and two part-time employees.
• Thank you for your time. ...I have five full-time employees and two part-time employees.
• because so many of our organizations, whether they be county employees, city employees, state employees
• County employees, city employees, and state employees are under collective bargaining agreements.
• employees</c> Employees city employees state employees Employees city employees state employees are<

Bills: HF1976

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Keywords: paid leave, family leave, employment law, Minnesota statute, benefit eligibility, seasonal employment, workforce, labor rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , teachers' retirement systems, school employees' retirement systems, the public safety employees' retirement
• Employees Benefits Board program, creating a presumption of eligibility for employees returning to positions
• Rather, it's the cost of the system for school employees spread over all of the eligible employees.
• Currently, SEBB rules presume that an employee, if the employee worked in a similar position for the
• Things... ...employees that were potentially affected by this change, current employees.

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee heard staff briefings and testimony on four bills. House Bill 2124, a Department of Retirement Systems request, would raise the minimum monthly pension benefit that can be paid as a lump sum from $50 to $250, with future inflation adjustments by the director; staff said it would cost about $11,000 in administrative changes and have no actuarial impact on the pension funds. House Bill 2125 would remove a biennial restriction on using pension fund interest earnings for certain administrative and compliance expenses that protect the funds; DRS said it would have no fiscal impact and would continue existing practice. Seth Miller of DRS supported both bills as efforts to reduce complexity and improve consistency across retirement systems. House Bill 2179 would create a retroactive exemption from PERS membership for certain port district employees who are instead covered by federal railroad retirement or union-sponsored defined benefit plans. Staff said audits found a small number of affected employees, with a one-time administrative cost of about $18,000, and noted possible legal concerns because retroactive changes can implicate vested retirement rights. Testimony from the Washington Public Ports Association and the Port of Ponderay supported the bill as a narrow clarification needed to avoid dual coverage and large retroactive liabilities; the Port of Vancouver also supported it as a fix for building trades workers covered by union plans. House Bill 2160 would change SEBB eligibility rules for school employees, creating a presumption of coverage on day one for returning employees who previously worked 630 hours in prior years, effectively shortening the lookback period and extending it across SEBB employers. Supporters, including substitute teachers, WEA, SEIU, and other school workers, said the bill would reduce disruptive gaps in coverage, help workers and families maintain continuous insurance, and improve recruitment and retention. Opponents, including school administrators, business officials, and school directors, argued it would be an unfunded mandate that could significantly increase district costs and administrative complexity, especially because districts would have to track hours and rebut presumptive eligibility. The Health Care Authority explained that eligibility is determined by local benefits administrators using worksheets and appeals, that the current two-year presumption was built from earlier benefit rules, and that the bill could increase costs and create issues for retirees who currently manage hours to stay below the 630-hour threshold. The committee took no votes and adjourned after public hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• , teachers' retirement systems, school employees' retirement systems, the public safety employees' retirement
• Employees Benefits Board program, creating a presumption of eligibility for employees returning to positions
• Rather, it's the cost of the system for school employees spread over all of the eligible employees.
• Now, currently, SEBB rules presume that an employee, if the employee worked in a similar position for
• Enrolling our railroad employees in DRS would impose an additional employee retirement tax of 5.38% and

Bills: HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2160 , HB2179

Committee: House Appropriations

Keywords: retirement, lump sum payment, financial security, pension reform, monthly benefits, retirement system, investment earnings, trust funds, public pensions, financial management, education, benefits, school employees, membership eligibility, employment, public employees, port workers, federal retirement plan, pension, 904

Transcript Highlights:

• employees and managers, and increases employee retention rates.
• school employees.
• "Thank you for protecting employees.
• Are these employees getting fingerprinted?
• We have to get permanent employees.

Summary: The committee heard several labor and employment measures. AB 465 would require local public employers, at a union’s request, to negotiate minimum disciplinary and grievance procedures in MOUs, including progressive discipline, just-cause protections, grievance appeal rights, and paid release time for representatives. Supporters, including AFSCME and SEIU, said it would create fairer and more consistent due process protections for local government workers; opponents from county and city groups argued it would impose binding arbitration and rigid discipline rules that could undermine local flexibility and accountability. The bill passed on a 5-0 vote and was re-referred to Appropriations. AB 792 would allow court interpreter bargaining to be consolidated when multiple regions are negotiating at the same time. The author and the California Federation of Interpreters said the change would reduce repeated bargaining, improve efficiency, and help address interpreter recruitment and retention. There was no opposition, but some members questioned whether the proposal would really solve wage and staffing problems; the bill passed 5-0 and was placed on hold. AB 1309, which would improve Cal Fire firefighter compensation by tying salaries more closely to comparable local fire departments, drew strong support from firefighters and no opposition. Members praised Cal Fire’s work and the bill passed 7-0 and was held for add-ons. The committee also approved AJR 8, a resolution urging protection of Social Security and opposing federal cuts or office closures. Supporters said Social Security is essential to seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and children, and warned that reductions would increase poverty and homelessness. One member objected to naming political figures in the resolution, but the measure still passed 7-0 and was held. AB 1247, which would require contracted-out school classified workers to meet the same training and qualification standards as direct hires and address related retirement contributions, passed 5-2 despite opposition from county superintendents and school administrators who said it would add costs and limit contracting flexibility. Finally, AB 288, which would authorize PERB to act when the NLRB fails to remedy labor claims by a deadline, passed 6-0 with strong union support and no opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• of full-time employee.
• We then define the intern employee and the intern employee position.
• of full-time employee.
• We then define the intern employee and the intern employee position.
• Intern employee and the intern employee position.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:08 Senate Bill 79 (Sen. McDaniel): 00:48 Senate Bill 67 (Sen. Nemes): 08:09 Adjournment: 12:43, 958, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee met and first took up Senate Bill 79, sponsored by Senator McDaniel, with testimony from McDaniel and Deputy Secretary Robert Long of the Personnel Cabinet. They described the bill as a cleanup measure for personnel law that would, among other things, add interns to the definition of employee while excluding them from full-time employee status, remove the Personnel Cabinet secretary as an ex officio member of the KERS Board, clarify personnel board membership and grievance rights, limit appeals of satisfactory-or-above evaluations, address layoffs and reemployment rights, allow leave donation in certain resignations or retirements, restrict remote work from outside Kentucky without approval, permit deductions for unreturned state equipment, and make DJJ facility supervisors non-merit positions. The committee voted on SB 79 and passed it with favorable expression. The committee then heard Senate Bill 67, presented by Chair Nemes, an elder property tax bill. The bill would freeze the assessed value of a primary residence for homeowners age 65 or older until the property is no longer their primary residence, while still taxing at the current rate. Nemes said the measure was intended to help seniors on fixed incomes and noted a fiscal analysis showing little to no direct revenue loss, though it could reduce projected budgeted growth in property tax revenue. Committee discussion noted a local impact and a statewide budget impact estimate of about $4 million for the first two fiscal years. SB 67 also passed with favorable expression, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Minnesota Association of Professional Employees represents over 18,500 state employees across all
• and classified service to that employee and classified service to this<00:13:37.240><c> employee</c>
• </c> classified and unclassified employees classified and unclassified employees what<00:14:37.120><c
• </c> Employee would be mean state employees Employee would be mean state employees and<00:21:51.240><
• employees</c><01:33:21.040><c> need</c> and employees need and employees need employers<01:33:23.119

Committee: Senate Labor

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Many of our public employees are also union members.
• program to employees of joint powers authorities.
• But many of our school employees don’t have that.
• A K-12 student turned classified employee.
• I worked for, I know I was a public employee, you guys.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement met for its first hearing of the session, adopted committee rules, and heard several labor-related bills. The chair reviewed hearing procedures, including limits on testimony and expectations for orderly conduct. Members then took up measures affecting public employee bargaining, contracting, confidentiality, school employee benefits, pay stub information, and state correctional health staffing. AB 672 would require public employers to notify PERB when filing court actions involving statutes PERB administers and allow PERB to intervene; it drew support from SEIU, AFSCME, school employees, labor groups, and no opposition, and was passed out of committee. AB 283 would move IHSS bargaining from the county to the state level; providers and recipients testified about low wages, long delays in bargaining, and care access concerns, while counties and public authorities raised cost, scope, and implementation issues. The bill passed 7-0 after members discussed family care worker concerns and the author said he would continue working on the issue. AB 339 would require local governments to give unions 120 days’ notice before contracting out bargaining-unit work. Labor supporters said the bill would make existing meet-and-confer rights meaningful and protect jobs, while counties, cities, special districts, chambers of commerce, and staffing groups argued it would burden local agencies and interfere with existing MMBA procedures. The committee also heard AB 340, which would make communications between employees and union representatives confidential for PERB purposes; supporters said it codified existing case law, while school administrators, special districts, counties, and business groups warned it could hinder investigations. AB 378 would extend the classified school employees summer assistance program to JPA employees, and AB 374 would require more detailed pay stubs for classified school employees; both had labor support and some education-sector opposition over implementation and cost concerns, and both advanced. AB 393 would require cost analyses before contracting out physician work at CDCR and the Department of State Hospitals; supporters argued the state was overpaying contractors amid high vacancy rates, and the bill also advanced. At the end of the hearing, the committee recorded final votes showing AB 283, AB 340, AB 374, AB 378, AB 393, and AB 672 all passing out of committee, while AB 339 remained on hold with a 4-0 vote and some members not voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have about 50 employees.
• They have about 50 employees.
• Requiring employees to offer pre-tax benefits... ...creates incentives for employees to use transit while
• After the federal government mandated offering pre-tax transit benefits to employees, the number of employees
• Well, for employees, what are you going to do?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development held a hybrid hearing on a large group of bills carried over from the previous session, with Chair Jake Oliveira and House Co-Chair Paul McMurtry outlining the process and limiting testimony to three minutes. The committee heard testimony on several labor and workplace proposals, including bills to harmonize employee definitions to address misclassification (SB 1338/HB 2141), expand bereavement leave (including H. 2189/S. 1354 and related bills), protect collective bargaining rights for certain administrative employees (HB 268/SB 1306), expand commuter transit benefits (HB 2153/SB 1345), regulate employer use of credit reports (S. 1286), and require apprenticeship participation or OSHA-related workplace safety measures on public projects. At the end of the hearing, the chairs read into the record additional bills that did not receive testimony that day. Supporters of the misclassification bill, including Greater Boston Legal Services and the AFL-CIO, said aligning the employee-status tests across wage, unemployment, and PFML laws would reduce confusion, improve enforcement, and help workers wrongly treated as independent contractors or managers recover benefits and bargaining rights. NAGE and its representative argued that public-sector employees have been improperly reclassified into management titles to weaken unions, and that the bill would force the Division of Labor Relations to review those titles. On bereavement leave, advocates including the Louis E. Brown Peace Institute, a state representative, the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance, and individual survivors described the impact of sudden loss and homicide on families, saying guaranteed leave would help workers grieve, make arrangements, and avoid losing jobs or custody-related stability. The committee also heard support for commuter benefits as a low-cost way to reduce emissions and increase transit use, and for restricting employer credit checks because of inaccuracies and discriminatory effects. There was opposition to some construction-related bills. The Associated Builders and Contractors and the Building Trades Employers Association supported apprenticeship training in principle but said current apprentice-to-journeyworker ratios are outdated or misunderstood, and that the bills should be amended or clarified before advancing. The Massachusetts landscape and snow-removal industry strongly supported a snow-liability limitation bill, arguing that hold-harmless clauses and broad indemnification requirements force contractors to assume liability for conditions they cannot control, drive up insurance costs, and threaten business viability. The committee did not take any votes during the hearing, and the session ended with the chairs thanking members, staff, and the public before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Association of professional employees Association of professional employees mape<00:04:09.799><c
• </c><00:04:28.680><c> who</c> on how to better protect employees who on how to better protect employees
• </c><00:04:41.639><c> under</c> the uh certain public employees under the uh certain public employees
• and uh other public state employees and uh other public employees<00:05:14.160><c> in</c><00:05:14.400
• classified</c> Etc the employees in the classified Etc the employees in the classified service<00:05

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 23, authored by Representative Robbins, was heard on a motion to advance it to the next committee. The bill, as amended by the A1 author’s amendment, would clarify the statutory definition of abuse, fraud, and waste and expand whistleblower protections for state employees who report those issues to legislators, the legislative auditor, or constitutional officers. Robbins said the measure is intended to protect state workers and align whistleblower language with existing Inspector General definitions; he also cited recent fraud investigations as the backdrop for the bill and noted a Senate companion, SF 475, with bipartisan support. Devon Bruce of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees testified in support of the bill’s protective intent but raised concerns that it only covers classified state employees, creating uneven treatment between classified and unclassified workers and between state and local public employees. Bruce also warned that the bill does not fully address data practices issues, including the handling of nonpublic, private, or proprietary information, and suggested broader privacy protections for whistleblowers’ identities. In response to questions, Robbins said the bill was not meant to change data practices law and that those issues should be addressed separately. Members debated whether the bill was ready for further consideration and whether it should also go to the fraud oversight committee or Judiciary. Motions to lay the bill over and to re-refer it to the fraud prevention and state oversight committee both failed. After a roll call vote, the committee approved the bill 7-6 and sent House File 23 to Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not a right for any employee.
• . one-on-one face time with each employee. one-on-one face time with each employee.
• We've got employees all over. We have employees that are in facilities.
• </c> employees that are in facilities. employees that are in facilities.
• </c> number of employees historically, yes. number of employees historically, yes.

Keywords: Investments in Information Technology Improvement & Modernization Projects Oversight Board will met upon adjournment of both chambers. The time set is noon on YouTube, But the official time will likely vary based on chamber proceedings. Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:00 Tools for Managing Remote Work Kentucky Personnel Cabinet 00:00:30 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 00:20:20 Cabinet for Health and Family Services 00:33:10 Housing, Buildings and Construction 00:47:40 Commonwealth Office of Technology 00:56:20, 958, all

Summary: The committee received testimony from Personnel Cabinet Secretary Mary Elizabeth Bailey and Deputy Secretary Robert Long on the state’s telecommuting policy. Bailey explained that telecommuting in the executive branch is governed by a statewide policy requiring eligible employees to work in the office three days a week and telecommute up to two days a week. Eligibility depends first on the position, not the person: public-facing jobs, roles requiring special equipment or insecure document handling, and other duties that cannot be performed remotely are not eligible. Employees and managers must complete training, sign agreements, comply with safety and IT requirements, and telecommuting privileges can be revoked for poor performance or discipline. She said the cabinet audits compliance and that telecommuting has helped maintain services during inclement weather, disasters, and building renovations. Bailey also said about 33% of the workforce is hybrid, 11% telecommutes full-time, and 56% does not telecommute. Members asked about cost savings, eligibility, discipline, and technology requirements. Bailey said she did not have statewide cost-savings figures and referred that question to the Finance and Administration Cabinet. She said employees must have reliable connectivity and appropriate equipment, but there is no fixed broadband speed requirement; if an employee cannot connect, they must come into the office. She also said telecommuting postings indicate whether a position is eligible, and that performance issues are handled through progressive discipline rather than being ignored. Transportation Cabinet officials then described how their agency manages remote work. Deputy Secretary Mike Hancock, along with IT and human resources leaders, said the cabinet follows the executive branch policy and actively manages telecommuting employees through Microsoft Teams, VPN access, daily standups, project tracking, and manager oversight. They said more than 2,600 of the cabinet’s 4,000 employees cannot telecommute because their jobs are public-facing or field-based, while about 35% are eligible to telecommute up to two days per week. The cabinet also has 13 state employees and 94 contract employees working full-time remotely in IT. Officials said telecommuting has improved recruitment and retention, supported emergency response and weather operations, and allowed the cabinet to continue working during storms and other disruptions. Members asked about phone equipment, monitoring, and “mouse jiggler” devices; officials said phones are often forwarded to personal or state devices, Teams shows real-time availability, and managers rely on daily accountability and project management tools to monitor work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee were public judicial employees, that is, employees in the judicial branch of government, it
• So on the same concept, you have the employees, the staff employees, and then you have the contract attorneys
• within the Commonwealth's public employee collective bargaining framework.
• It would simply allow CPCS employees access to the same legal process that many other public employees
• SEIU Local 888 and NAGE, the National Association of Government Employees.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 2522 / H. 5909, which would amend state labor law to treat the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) as a public employer and allow its employees to seek collective bargaining rights. The chair explained the Article 48 initiative process, noted that no opponents or members of the public had signed up to testify, and said written testimony would be accepted through March 20. The hearing focused on whether CPCS staff should be brought within the public-sector bargaining framework and how that would interact with the agency’s statutory duties. Expert testimony began with an NCSL analyst, who gave a national overview of public employee bargaining rights and examples of public defender unions in other states and localities, including Colorado, New York City, Indianapolis, Cook County, Maryland, and Illinois. Department of Labor Relations officials then reviewed prior failed organizing efforts at CPCS and its predecessor, explaining that earlier petitions were dismissed because the agency was not considered a public employer under existing law. They said passage of the initiative would not automatically unionize employees, but would allow a union to petition for an election or written majority authorization, with normal unit-appropriateness and supervisory/confidential employee issues still to be resolved. CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti testified that the agency supports providing information to the legislature but is not taking a position for or against unionization. He described CPCS’s statutory responsibilities, size, and current efforts to expand staffing after recent indigent-defense crises, and said any new bargaining framework would need to operate alongside the agency’s obligations to provide counsel. Proponents from SEIU Local 888 and allied labor groups argued that CPCS employees have long been denied the same collective bargaining rights as other public workers, and that a union would provide just-cause protections, a voice on staffing and working conditions, and better support for recruitment and retention. CPCS attorneys and staff testified in favor of the measure, citing heavy caseloads, rapid expansion, inadequate supervision and office support, and the need for representation in disciplinary and workplace disputes. Committee members asked about bargaining-unit composition, the role of the DLR, the effect of unionization on attorneys’ ethical duties, and the use and cost of paid signature gathering. The hearing ended with no votes taken and no opposition testimony presented.

Transcript Highlights:

• The employee wanted to be gone.
• We're asking a lot of employees our employees that have little to no job security.
• A couple of questions: Are DLAs considered legislative employees, state employees.
• one employee I have.
• Shauna, are all employees of the legislature at-will employees? Madam Chair, yes.

Committee: House Legislative Council

Transcript Highlights:

• , but say I was an hourly employee, but say I was an hourly employee. employee. employee.
• Um, having that in writing to the employee would, or sorry, to the employee, one allows the employee
• Um, having that in writing to the employee would, or sorry, to the employee, one allows the employee
• employees.
• employees.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed House Bill 1150, which would require disclosure of complaints to public employees within five business days. Members said the sponsor was still working on an amendment, so the bill was held for another week with the understanding it would be executed next week if no amendment was ready. The chair also outlined the committee’s schedule, including upcoming floor reports and the goal of finishing the remaining committee bills on time. The committee then took up House Bill 1168, concerning employer documentation requirements. Supporters argued the bill would give employers more time to gather payroll records, especially when claims arise years later, and said the current system should be adjusted for fairness to businesses. Opponents, including several members, said payroll records are usually electronic and should be produced quickly so workers waiting on wages are not delayed. The Department of Labor deputy commissioner testified that employers can already request extensions and that further extensions could still be requested under the current process. The committee voted 11-9 to ought to pass HB 1168. Next, House Bill 1250, dealing with notice, documentation, and job reinstatement requirements for leave related to childbirth, postpartum care, and pediatric appointments, was considered. Members said the statute was newly enacted, had been carefully negotiated, and should be allowed to work before being revised. The committee voted 20-0 to recommend inexpedient to legislate, and the bill was placed on the consent calendar. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1043, which would allow private employers to adopt their own minimum pay policies for report-to-work situations instead of being bound by the current two-hour minimum, so long as the policy is established in advance. The sponsor said the bill would modernize an outdated law and preserve the current default if no policy is adopted. Members raised questions about collective bargaining agreements and whether the bill could weaken existing worker protections, while the sponsor and supporters said it was intended to provide flexibility rather than a mandate. The hearing continued with questions and discussion, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's in employees.
• </c> Senate employees. Senate employees.
• employees? employees? &gt;&gt; Secretary<00:05:04.919><c> Batten.</c> &gt;&gt; Secretary Batten.
• </c> [clears throat] individual employees. [clears throat] individual employees.
• </c> for example, the number of employees for example, the number of employees will<00:10:53.520><c>

Committee: Senate Rules and Administration

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And now, you know, many of those employees, led by some of the unions, are working to organize employees
• The employees would have to follow the process that is outlined under the Massachusetts Public Employee
• under the definition of public employees.
• under the definition of public employees.
• These employees are frequently entry-level employees or industry veterans who prefer a permanent workplace

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on several labor-related bills, especially proposals to give legislative employees the right to organize and collectively bargain, close a prevailing wage loophole for off-site prefabrication work, and strengthen enforcement against wage theft. Committee chairs opened the hearing by explaining the hybrid format and asking witnesses to keep testimony brief. Multiple legislators testified in support of the legislative staff union bill, saying staff deserve the same bargaining rights as other public employees and that unionization would improve pay, benefits, retention, and workplace dignity. Witnesses also discussed how the bill would likely be structured, with separate House and Senate bargaining arrangements or locals, and emphasized that it would only create the option to unionize, not require it. A second major topic was the prevailing wage bill addressing off-site fabrication and prefabrication in construction. Union leaders, contractors, and workers described how more work is being shifted from job sites into shops, especially in sheet metal, HVAC, electrical, and pipefitting work, and argued that the law should treat that work the same as on-site construction when it is part of a public project. They said the current loophole lets some contractors underbid by paying lower wages off-site, while responsible contractors already pay prevailing wages in their shops. Supporters argued the bill would protect workers, preserve apprenticeship and training standards, improve safety and quality, and make enforcement easier through certified payroll and clearer definitions. The committee also heard testimony on wage theft legislation. Representative Dan Donahue, the Attorney General’s Fair Labor Division, AFL-CIO representatives, and carpenters’ union witnesses described wage theft, misclassification, labor brokers, and tax fraud as widespread problems that hurt workers, honest contractors, and public revenues. They supported giving the Attorney General stronger enforcement tools, adding contractor accountability up the subcontracting chain, and protecting workers from retaliation and from delays that can cause claims to expire. A separate witness supported a bill to extend the statute of limitations for Wage Act cases while AG investigations are pending, and another supported changes to help hospital workers enforce timely payment rights. No votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses repeatedly asked for favorable reports on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, the employee has to be employed by the same school district; now employees could stack benefits
• in eligible positions, and they can't pick and choose which employees are in and which employees are
• Enrolling our railroad employees in DRS would impose an additional employee retirement tax of 5.38% and
• , and former employees would also be required to pay.
• This bill would impose a new fee on businesses with more than 100 employees based on their employees'

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on January 20, 2026, hearing several bills related to retirement systems, school employee health coverage, port district pensions, environmental fee accounts, developmental disability services, legislative budget transparency, and a new Apple Health employer assessment. Early in the meeting, the committee heard SB 5834, which would make permanent a temporary expansion allowing certain retirement trust fund earnings to pay broader administrative expenses, and SB 5835, which would raise the lump-sum retirement allowance threshold for Plan 2 members from $50 to $250. Both bills were presented by Department of Retirement Systems staff and supported by the department, with questions focused on the scope of the administrative-expense language in SB 5834 and the technical nature of SB 5835. The committee then entered executive session and moved three bills without recommendation to the Rules Committee: Substitute SB 5249, allowing kit homes as emergency housing; Substitute SB 5053, allowing certain counties to include school district boundaries when forming a public facilities district; and Substitute SB 5203, directing state agencies to develop a wildlife habitat connectivity strategy and creating related accounts. After returning to public hearing, members heard SB 5883 on SEBB eligibility for school employees in their second school year of employment. Supporters, including labor representatives and individual school workers, said the bill would reduce coverage gaps and improve recruitment and retention, while school district officials and administrators argued it would create an unfunded mandate, increase costs, and add administrative burden. No action was taken on the bill. The committee also heard SB 5905, which would exclude certain port district employees from PERS if they are covered by the federal Railroad Retirement Plan or a collectively bargained defined benefit pension plan. Port representatives, labor stakeholders, and the Department of Retirement Systems described it as a narrow technical fix to avoid duplicate pension coverage and retroactive liabilities, and the bill drew support. SB 6151 would create dedicated accounts for Ecology fee revenue tied to laboratory accreditation and landfill methane work; Ecology and county representatives supported the measure as a way to reinvest fees in the programs that generate them. SB 6163 would require the Individual and Family Services waiver for developmental disability services to be budgeted at maintenance level; advocates said it would stabilize services and prevent waitlists, and no opposition was heard. The final two bills were SB 6177, which would require LEAP’s budget website to display additional budget detail such as carry-forward data, program and subprogram expenditures, and balance sheets for all public accounts, and SB 6173, which would create an Apple Health employer assessment on larger private employers with workers enrolled in Medicaid expansion coverage. SB 6177 was framed as a transparency measure, while SB 6173 drew extensive testimony both in support and opposition: supporters said it would help offset expected Medicaid losses after federal work requirements take effect and stabilize the health safety net, while opponents argued it would be an unfunded tax, create administrative and legal complications, and could discourage hiring or reduce hours. The committee heard no final votes on the public hearing bills, and staff reminded members that signature sheets would be held for 24 hours under Senate rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• county employee.
• ><c> not</c> and Tuscaloosa. those employees were not and Tuscaloosa. those employees were not allowed
• </c><00:09:29.360><c> become</c> Instead, it lets city employees become Instead, it lets city employees
• were</c> city or county employee and we were city or county employee and we were administering<00:09:
• </c> employee or a county employee. employee or a county employee.

Committee: House County and Municipal Government

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• employees.
• employees.
• employees.
• </c> employee. That's my interest. employee. That's my interest.
• </c> employees in New Hampshire. employees in New Hampshire.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Keywords: 1189, house, all