Transcript Highlights:

• It is hourly workers across the state.
• </c><00:05:05.919><c> dollars</c> concerned about how our state dollars concerned about how our state
• They were axed out of the system, and they're the only employees in the state that work more than 3 months
• ><00:14:17.360><c> work</c><00:14:17.600><c> more</c> employees in the state that work more employees
• </c> was uh paid for entirely out of state was uh paid for entirely out of state aid,<00:21:19.120><c

Bills: HF1049

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the landscape workers across the state are facing.
• Judy, State Building Trades Council, in support.
• When the employee knew a manager was watching, it stopped.
• Martin Vindiole on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States
• State, billing rates in support. Judy E. State, billing rates in support.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on workplace technology, labor protections, and data center oversight. SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026, would require human review before automated systems are used in discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions and would ban predictive behavior analysis in the workplace. Labor groups, worker advocates, and privacy organizations supported the bill, arguing AI can be biased and should not make life-changing employment decisions without human judgment. Business groups opposed it, saying it was broader than prior versions, could interfere with workplace safety tools, and should not include a private right of action or cover independent contractors. After discussion about due process and accountability, the bill passed the committee 3-1 and was sent to the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection. SB 978, the Data Center Community Accountability Act, would require data centers to pay upfront for new transmission or distribution infrastructure, create a separate rate structure so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers, and include skilled-and-trained labor standards for construction. Supporters said the bill would protect ratepayers, create good construction jobs, and encourage zero-carbon energy development. Opponents, including the Data Center Coalition and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, argued the CPUC already has ongoing proceedings on these issues and warned the bill could single out one industry and discourage investment. The committee members emphasized labor standards and community concerns, and the bill passed 3-0 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. SB 951, the California Worker Technological Displacement Act, would expand WARN-style notice requirements for layoffs caused by AI or automation, require reporting to workers, local government, and EDD, and give displaced workers first consideration for other openings. Supporters said the bill responds to rapid AI-driven layoffs and would provide needed transparency and data. Opponents said the definitions were too broad, the notice requirements too burdensome, and the bill conflicted with existing WARN law; they also objected to the private right of action and inclusion of independent contractors. The committee discussed amendments clarifying that an employee may still be discharged for reasonable and substantiated cause during the notice period. The bill passed 3-1 to the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection. The committee also approved SB 1032, which would create a licensing and regulatory framework for temporary staffing agencies, and SB 1046, which would direct Cal/OSHA to develop standards to protect lifeguards and park rangers from transboundary pollution in the Tijuana River Valley. SB 1032 drew support from labor and enforcement advocates who said it would help stop staffing fraud, while staffing firms argued the bill was vague and could burden legitimate small businesses; it passed 3-1 to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. SB 1046 was supported by park workers and community groups describing health impacts from pollution and passed 4-0 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The committee also took up a consent item, which passed 4-0, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• what mandates look like before they go to the private market, but also to give a crack for state employees
• employees or employees of any political subdivision.
• employees or employees of any political subdivision.
• And also why state employees would get to have legislation passed before they can in the commercial market
• So if we do the study for the state employees, it may not replicate well in the commercial market.

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• 22,000 electrical workers in the state of Washington.
• I work for the Washington State Labor Council.
• You may be aware there are something like 400,000 businesses that have employees in this state.
• It's a cooperative in the center of the state.
• It's a cooperative in the center of the state.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on several Labor and Workplace Standards bills. HB 2492 would require building and construction apprenticeship programs, beginning in 2027, to include two hours of behavioral health and wellness training covering topics such as suicide prevention, substance use disorder, recognizing distress, peer support, and connecting to resources. The prime sponsor and many labor, apprenticeship, and contractor witnesses supported the bill, describing high suicide and overdose rates in construction and sharing personal stories about losses and struggles in the trades. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee then heard HB 2405, a Department of Labor and Industries request bill creating a pilot to allow earlier treatment for PTSD claims in workers’ compensation, including up to 11 treatment sessions before claim adjudication and limited follow-up treatment after closure. L&I and NFIB supported the measure as a way to speed treatment and reduce barriers, while one legal advocate supported it but raised technical concerns about pre-claim treatment and urged more focus on workplace prevention; another witness cautioned against emphasizing psychiatric drug treatment. The bill was heard only; no action was taken. HB 2406 would expand L&I’s ability to send notices electronically, with opt-in/opt-out provisions and some changes to timing rules for workers’ compensation and WISHA notices. L&I supported the bill as a modernization measure, while labor and workers’ advocates opposed changes affecting workers’ compensation notices, arguing that email should not become the default for vulnerable workers who may miss deadlines. HB 2478 would give L&I discretion, rather than a mandate, to investigate wage complaints and allow penalties when the department initiates an investigation; L&I supported it as a more efficient enforcement tool, and the committee discussed how complaints would still be handled and communicated. Finally, HB 2471 would create a state collective bargaining framework for private-sector workers if federal labor law or the NLRB no longer covers them. Supporters said it would preserve organizing and dispute-resolution rights if federal protections fail, while agricultural employers and NFIB opposed it, arguing it would inappropriately apply to agriculture and small businesses, could disrupt perishable harvests, and should rely on secret-ballot elections rather than card check. No votes were taken on any of the bills in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I have a bill on the floor today that will expand whistleblower protections for state employees, and
• How does your bill expand on current whistleblower protections that state employees have?
• So currently the law protects unclassified employees, and we're expanding it to all state employees.
• So currently the law protects unclassified employees, and we're expanding it to all state employees.
• </c> also includes um unclassified state also includes um unclassified state employees<00:10:42.600><

Summary: State Representative Jim Nash and Representative Kristin Robbins discussed a package of fraud-prevention bills, centered on House File 3 and a separate whistleblower-protection measure. HF 3 would require annual reports based on Office of the Auditor (OA/OLA) findings to be sent to ranking members of relevant committees, with the goal of giving appropriators more information about internal controls and follow-up on audit recommendations. Nash said the bill is intended to help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, cited the Feeding Our Future case as an example of weak controls, and noted that the OA helped draft the proposal and supports it. He also said the bill’s language is modeled in part on Colorado and on earlier recommendations for more information to be shared with decision-makers. Robbins said her bill would expand whistleblower protections for state employees, including unclassified employees, and add new protected reporting channels and definitions. She said employees are often afraid to come forward because of job and career concerns, and that the bill would better protect reports made to legislators, the OA, governmental bodies, and law enforcement. She and Nash said they were working with DFL members and committee chairs on bipartisan amendments to define “fraud” and “misuse,” and to align the language with the Inspector General bill and prior law. In questions, Robbins explained that current law protects only certain employees and that her bill would broaden coverage and make it easier for employees to report concerns without fear. She said the OA supports the effort and that the added reporting pathways would help with follow-up on agency recommendations. Nash and Robbins both emphasized that the measures are part of a broader fraud-fighting package and expressed hope for bipartisan support, though Nash criticized DFL leadership for not backing the bills more openly. No votes or final actions were taken in the exchange shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, whether that's the state or the employers at the local level or the employee, it could be a combination
• model that calculates if the employer rate increases and cities, counties, or the state hire fewer employees
• model that calculates if the employer rate increases and cities, counties, or the state hire fewer employees
• the state hire fewer employees<00:47:55.119><c> due</c><00:47:55.359><c> to</c><00:47:55.520><c> that
• But you're stating for the record, the legislature created the retirement system for our employees.

Committee: Joint Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• law that governs public officers and employees. ...This amends a definition of employer in state law
• in that law has no comparable provision in state law that governs public officers and employees.
• A provision in that law has no comparable provision in state law that governs public officers and employees
• A provision in that law has no comparable provision in state law that governs public officers and employees
• law that governs public officers state law that governs public officers and<00:27:54.159><c> employees

Committee: Senate Labor and Technology

Summary: The Committee on Labor and Technology heard several labor-related measures. SB 183 would allow arbitration to resolve disputes over state and county contributions to the EUTF benefits trust fund; labor groups supported it, and the committee advanced it with amendments. SB 185, concerning indebtedness to the state, drew support from unions and discussion with DAGS about tiered repayment options for lower-paid employees; DAGS said the system could be programmed to accommodate the bill, and the measure was also advanced with amendments. SB 458 would expand the definition of employer for wage-payment laws to include the state and counties when no comparable public-employee provision exists; HSTA testified in support, citing repeated delayed pay for teachers, while DAGS and county representatives raised operational concerns. The committee deferred SB 458 for further administrative work. SB 425, on qualified community rehabilitation programs and the aggregate contract cap, was advanced with technical amendments after UPW said employers were splitting contracts to exceed the statutory threshold. The committee also considered SB 1287, which would apply unfair and deceptive practices law to tipped food and beverage establishments and require tip-pool signage with wage-division contact information. The Attorney General’s office recommended a savings clause to avoid retroactive application issues, and the committee passed the bill with amendments. SB 1660 would require hospitality employers to adopt anti-harassment measures, training, panic buttons, and anti-retaliation protections; the Commission on the Status of Women and worker advocates supported it, while DLIR noted existing complaint systems and the need for rulemaking. The committee adopted amendments incorporating sexual assault hotline information, panic-button guidance, and employer flexibility on translation languages, then passed the bill with amendments. SB 631, relating to the Department of Human Resources Development, was deferred, with the chair noting a prior law already allows departments to screen and select applicants from initial pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• to cost you three times state employees.
• We've got three employees for $112,000, you know, and you're asking the state to increase some boards
• The average salary for a state employee is $90,000 with benefits. >> Mr.
• We've got three state employees.
• is $90,000 with for a state employee is $90,000 with benefits. benefits. benefits.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the state receives it.
• ask for a new employee.
• Also, ... employee. So comp is is is out there, employee.
• seem very promp employee and us states seem very promp employee and us not<01:17:01.679><c> so</c><01
• So all states look at other states.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Transcript Highlights:

• We represent about 10,000 retired state employees.
• We represent about 10,000 retired state employees.
• In 1981, I joined Texas State Employees.
• I'm Bill Hamilton, president of the Retired State Employees Association.
• almost exclusively on the health and welfare of our retired state employees.

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• ><00:43:20.880><c> we're</c> employees in the state, but we're employees in the state, but we're talking
• So Orisa, in other words, is intended to avoid employers having to modify employee benefits to meet state-by-state
• benefits to meet modify employee benefits to meet state-by-state<03:23:31.439><c> requirements.
• This is to cover their employees in this state. It will net positive.
• It will net employees in this state.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, so all state employees, right?
• One is Group One, which covers employees who are state employees, city and municipal employees, as well
• which are state which covers employees which are state employees<01:58:35.000><c> City</c><01:58:35.440
• Our employees, similar to state employees, participate in NHRS.
• similar to State rate um our employees similar to State Employees<02:48:21.920><c> you</c><02:48:22.040

Summary: The Department of Administrative Services presented an overview of its budget and operations, emphasizing that it is the lowest-spending agency in state government and that its general fund allocation has declined since 2019. Commissioner Arling House explained that DAS also handles back-office functions for several administratively attached boards, which has affected staffing and spending comparisons. He said the department’s current general fund spending is roughly split between retiree health and other operations, and that the presentation was based on adjusted authorized spending rather than the original budget figures. A major portion of the meeting focused on retiree health benefits and the long-term effort to control costs. Deputy Commissioner Cassie Keane described how the state moved from a projected deficit in retiree health to savings through a series of changes, including higher premium contributions, co-pay adjustments, and shifting Medicare retirees into Medicare Advantage arrangements to capture federal reimbursement. She said the state has about 12,500 retirees and spouses on the plan, with roughly 10,906 Medicare retirees and 1,580 non-Medicare retirees, and that the savings have depended heavily on federal funding and procurement decisions. She also noted that Medicare retirees pay Part B premiums and that the state has grandfathered older retirees from some premium contributions. Members asked about what the expenditures cover, why the state offers retiree health instead of simply giving retirees a payment to buy coverage themselves, and whether out-of-pocket costs changed under Medicare Advantage. Keane said the plan covers actual health claims or insurance premiums, that co-pays and maximum out-of-pocket limits remain in place, and that the state has no authority to change benefit details without legislative action. She explained that retiree health is a long-standing employee benefit that wraps around Medicare and is not collectively bargained in the usual sense, though its eligibility rules and cost-sharing have been tightened over time to better target the benefit to long-term state service. The discussion also covered vendor performance problems. Keane said Anthem recently won the contract back from Aetna, but its pharmacy subsidiary, Caroline, caused serious service disruptions. DAS responded by withholding payments, assessing more than $2 million in performance guarantees, and hiring a third-party auditor to review the pharmacy processes. The current contract runs through the end of calendar year 2026, and officials said they are watching federal Medicare Advantage reimbursement changes closely because future savings are uncertain.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have 9 of the private 4 of the state-run. All of this is in the state-run.
• Obviously, there's sort of a section that employees of the current state-run facilities would have to
• Not only from state employees, but I'm also hearing from patients.
• And what I'm hearing on the ground, both from our employees and our state-run facilities, but also from
• And not that they need to hire every employee, but they need to interview every employee.

Committee: House Appropriations and Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Some other states do this. I got this from other states as well.
• These resources are targeted to companies with 250 or fewer employees in every corner of the state.
• These resources are targeted to companies with 250 or fewer employees in every corner of the state.
• These resources are targeted to companies with 250 or fewer employees in every corner of the state.
• These resources are targeted to companies with 250 or fewer employees in every corner of the state.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:07.360><c> definition</c> added to the public employees definition added to the public employees
• > sort</c><00:12:05.600><c> of</c><00:12:05.760><c> that</c> employees and um sort of that employees
• Um hey, I that is as public employees.
• Public employees exceeding their authority.
• I think that it has an public employees.

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, for every day that you had an employee times the number of employees that you didn't keep these
• So the standards for independent contractor versus employee are different at the federal and the state
• , or, excuse me, in the state.
• As background, certain State Treasurer employees assist both the unclaimed property and banking services
• employee of the state acting in an official capacity can be held personally liable for an act or omission

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 4198, which would require employers to use E-Verify to confirm new hires’ work authorization and impose escalating penalties for violations, including warnings, debarment from state contracts, loss of business licenses, and other sanctions. Counsel and senators raised extensive drafting concerns, including circular language, conflicts with existing record-retention provisions, unclear references to “seeks to employ,” possible application to babysitters, lawn care, and other casual or household arrangements, and uncertainty about how the bill would work for employers who never actually complete a hire. The bill sponsor defended the measure as a way to strengthen compliance with existing law, protect employers who use E-Verify in good faith, and deter illegal hiring. After debate, a motion to table the bill failed on a roll call vote, 6 in favor and 10 opposed, and the chair then announced the bill would be sent to a subcommittee to be cleaned up, with instructions to resolve the drafting conflicts and other ambiguities. The committee then turned to House Bill 4710, with an amendment, which would require a person to be registered with a political party or as an independent 210 days before filing a certificate of candidacy. Counsel explained that the change would lengthen the current 60-day requirement and would affect both party-switching and independent candidacies, making it harder for candidates to change affiliation shortly before an election. Senators asked about how the 210-day period would work relative to the primary and general election filing deadlines, and counsel clarified that it would be measured backward from the relevant filing dates. The discussion focused on the practical effect of the bill as a “sore loser” measure and on the timing rules for candidacy filings.

Transcript Highlights:

• We wanted to make sure agencies didn't prematurely give layoff notices early June to state employees
• </c> layoff notices early June to state layoff notices early June to state employees<00:40:04.000><c>
• Some are within our department or other state employees that might offer their time to help teach.
• Some are within our department or other state employees that might offer their time to help teach.
• Some are within our department or other state employees that might offer their time to help teach.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of partial minutes, with members noting that DHS/HHS material was not yet included and that the minutes would be finalized later. The committee then heard from the General Court about several dedicated funds. Testimony explained the Joint Legislative Historical Fund, which receives a $25,000 annual general fund appropriation and transfers from visitor center sales above a $50,000 threshold, and is used for portrait maintenance, chamber work, Hall of Flags upkeep, and other historical preservation needs. Members also discussed the preservation of the Civil War flags in the Hall of Flags, with the General Court stating the flags are monitored through annual high-definition photos and that no immediate stabilization project is planned. A question about Union cemeteries was raised but the witness said he had no knowledge of federal funding for them. The committee also reviewed the visitor center revolving fund and noted that the accounting presentation is confusing because transfers are netted out so the fund ends each year at $50,000. Members suggested the narrative should clearly identify the transfer amounts and actual revenue, and staff agreed to note that in future reporting. The General Court then described its special legislative account as a stability reserve for capital and emergency needs, citing past uses such as the plaza ADA renovation, the legislative parking garage, and moving operations to One Granite Place. Members asked about interest earnings and were told the account is held in the treasury and any interest goes to the general fund unless statute directs otherwise; no additional funding was recommended at this time. The Department of Administrative Services then presented the law enforcement memorial fund, explaining it is a long-standing leftover construction fund with a small balance that has not been needed because the New Hampshire Law Enforcement Memorial Officers Association privately funds memorial upkeep and plaques. Members discussed whether the state should transfer the remaining money to the nonprofit, but no decision was made; the department said it would research whether such a transfer is legally possible. The department also reviewed the former land conservation endowment fund, now moving to Fish and Game under House Bill 2, and explained that it primarily covers administrative costs, management fees, and investment losses for a long-term conservation program. Members asked about the fund’s large balance and the increase in expenses, and were told the fund is intended to last indefinitely and that future reporting will shift to Fish and Game.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just last question: do you think it's fair the state employees have to wait a whole pay period to get
• As a state employee, I can tell you that it does impact—it impacted me personally.
• > wait</c><00:05:25.400><c> a</c> fair the state employees have to wait a fair the state employees have
• employee um I can tell you that it state employee um I can tell you that it does<00:05:31.360><c> impact
• c><00:37:26.400><c> much</c> and uh uh state is uh state is much and uh uh state is uh state is much

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• They weren't enough to pay for employees.
• Employee meetings. Okay. Who was in attendance at these employee meetings?
• “Are you still an employee?” “We don’t have employees. What were the dates of your employment?”
• I'm technically—we don't have any employees.
• People do stuff that was all the way, like, out of pocket, and, you know, state covering up for the state

Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, again, most of the programs we're talking about are provided by state employees already, but we have
• By state employees. So who's overseeing those state employees? Or out of... by state employees.
• By state employees. So who's overseeing those state employees currently with the state agencies?
• And I asked them, I said rhetorically back, if it meant that you were a state employee, would you take
• So do you make all of these, how many thousands of state employees, local employees?

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE