BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1308 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 1308 (Perea) As Amended June 23, 2015 Majority vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: | | (May 4, 2015) |SENATE: | | (June 25, 2015) | | |53-23 | | |26-12 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: L. & E. SUMMARY: Revises a specified "needs requirement" under existing law related to the approval of apprenticeship programs. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires, in order to establish that apprenticeship training needs justify the approval of a new program, that existing programs do not have the capacity, or neglect or refuse, to dispatch sufficient apprentices to qualified employers who "have requested apprentices", as shown by a "sustained pattern of unfilled requests." 2)Eliminates a provision of existing law that authorizes the California Apprenticeship Council to approve a new apprenticeship program if special circumstances, as AB 1308 Page 2 established by regulation, justify the establishment of the program. 3)Provides that for purposes of this requirement, an existing apprenticeship program serves the "same craft or trade" as a proposed apprenticeship program when there would be a substantial overlap in the work processes covered by the programs or when graduates of the existing program would be qualified to perform a substantial portion of the work that would be performed by graduates of the new program. The Senate amendments add co-authors. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs. COMMENTS: This bill is sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council. They argue that it provides much needed clarification to Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) for the purpose of determining when an existing program is deficient. Adding "have requested apprentices" to the law clarifies that contractors must actually request apprentices before existing programs may be found to lack the capacity or willingness to dispatch them. The sponsor states that during Governor Schwarzenegger's administration, the DAS sought to rely on Employment Development Department projections of future apprentice needs to justify approval of new programs even though there was no evidence contractors had sought apprentices from existing programs and were unable to receive them. In addition, current law allows the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC) to promulgate a regulation providing for "special circumstances" that justify approval of new apprenticeship programs even if one is not needed. The sponsor notes that this statutory provision was adopted in 1999, and CAC has never promulgated such a regulation. Therefore, this bill removes this statutory provision. AB 1308 Page 3 Finally, the sponsor states that this bill protects existing high performing programs that graduate apprentices by ensuring the DAS approves new programs only when the proposed new program does not substantially overlap with an existing program's work processes. Opponents argue that this bill exacerbates the damaging aspects of the needs test by adding ambiguous language and deleting the very modest authority of the CAC to approve a new apprenticeship program "justified by special circumstances by regulation." While it may be suggested that adding a requirement that there be a "sustained pattern of unfilled requests" to justify new apprenticeship opportunities, they argue that this vague requirement of "sustained" will never be satisfactory to those who prefer monopoly over fair and open competition and training opportunities for all. Analysis Prepared by: Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091FN: 0001084