BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                                                                  SB 1397
                                                                  Page A

          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 1397 (Corbett)
          As Introduced  February 19, 2010
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :21-5  
           
           LABOR & EMPLOYMENT     4-1      APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Swanson, Furutani,        |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford,        |
          |     |Monning, Yamada           |     |Charles Calderon, Coto,   |
          |     |                          |     |Davis, De Leon, Gatto,    |
          |     |                          |     |Hall, Skinner, Solorio,   |
          |     |                          |     |Torlakson, Torrico        |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Bill Berryhill            |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller,   |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby            |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Amends various provisions of law related to the  
          approval of apprenticeship programs in the building and  
          construction industry.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Provides that no two representatives of the six  
            representatives from employee organizations on the California  
            Apprenticeship Council (CAC) may be from the same national or  
            international labor organization.

          2)Requires the following information to be submitted to the  
            Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) when  
            an apprenticeship program applies to create a new program or  
            expand an existing program: 

             a)   A written plan that sets out the number of new  
               apprentices the applicant seeks to enroll during the next  
               five years, including the applicant's budget for training  
               the new apprentices and a detailed explanation of how the  
               applicant intends to provide sufficient funding to meet  
               that budget;

             b)   Evidence that the applicant has obtained sufficient  
               commitments from employers to employ the new apprentices so  









                                                                  SB 1397
                                                                  Page B

               as to ensure, to the extent feasible, that the new  
               apprentices will be employed continuously throughout the  
               term of the apprenticeship;

             c)   Evidence that the applicant has, or will obtain,  
               suitable facilities to train the new apprentices; and,

             d)   A plan for the recruitment and selection of new  
               apprentices, including advertising the new apprenticeship  
               opportunities and outreach to organizations that promote  
               apprenticeship opportunities to women and underrepresented  
               minorities.

          3)Requires the Chief of DAS to disapprove the application where  
            the above requirements are not met or are deemed inadequate,  
            as specified, and set forth a process for an applicant to  
            amend its application.

          4)Eliminates the requirement in existing law that the Division  
            of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) randomly audit approved  
            apprenticeship programs during each five-year period, and  
            instead establishes the following new requirements for audits:

             a)   During an audit, DAS must attempt to contact a  
               statistically valid sample of apprentices that failed to  
               complete the apprenticeship program to ascertain the  
               reasons why the apprentices did not complete the program;

             b)   DAS is required to give priority in conducting audits to  
               programs that have been identified as having deficiencies;

             c)   DAS is required to audit all new or newly expanded  
               apprenticeship programs one year after the approval of  
               creating or expanding the program;

             d)   If DAS finds evidence that information provided to it by  
               a program has been purposefully misstated, it shall  
               immediately investigate and determine whether an audit is  
               necessary;

             e)   If DAS determines that a program has been the subject of  
               two or more meritorious complaints within a five-year  
               period, it shall schedule an audit within three months;  
               and,









                                                                  SB 1397
                                                                  Page C


             f)   If DAS determines that a program that has had at least  
               two graduating classes has an annual apprentice completion  
               rate below 50% of the average completion rate, it shall  
               schedule the program for an audit within three months.

          5)Requires each program to provide each apprentice, on at least  
            a semiannual basis, a statement showing specified information,  
            including the total number of hours of training and  
            instruction completed, and the number of hours required for  
            graduation, and the apprentice's expected graduation date.

          6)Require programs to report apprentice registration, change of  
            address, graduation, and termination data to DAS on a monthly  
            basis in an electronic format.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, while this bill would result in a redirection of  
          auditing and administrative resources within DAS, it would have  
          only limited impacts on net state costs.

           COMMENTS  :  Current law requires the DAS to audit apprenticeship  
          programs every five years to ensure that state standards are  
          being met and that the apprentices are being safely and  
          appropriately trained.  However, according to DAS's most recent  
          annual report from 2007, there were 675 state-approved  
          apprenticeship programs, making audit activities difficult.

          In place of the current auditing requirements, this bill focuses  
          the auditing process on programs that are new or newly expanded,  
          as well as programs that have low graduation rates, prior  
          meritorious complaints, or have purposefully misstated  
          information to DAS.

          This bill also requires new or expanding programs to submit a  
          written report stating their long-term plans, their ability to  
          meet those plans, and a recruitment strategy that includes  
          outreach to women and underrepresented minorities.  This bill  
          also establishes monthly electronic reporting requirements so  
          that DAS can track the progress of the programs, as well as  
          require reports be given to the apprentice so he or she can keep  
          track of his or her own progress.

          Proponents argue that this bill is necessary because the DAS  









                                                                  SB 1397
                                                                  Page D

          should be given the tools to strengthen oversight and make  
          apprenticeship programs better.  With the State of California  
          spending almost $31 million annually on apprenticeship training,  
          and private industry and labor contributing an additional $120  
          million annually in the construction industry alone, supporters  
          argue that it is important that we know how this substantial  
          investment is being spent.
          Supporters believe that this bill establishes basic guidelines  
          for the approval or expansion of apprenticeship programs.  Under  
          its provisions, the applicant would submit a written plan that  
          includes evidence of suitable facilities, the selection criteria  
          and recruitment plans for apprenticeship applicants, an estimate  
          of the number of apprentices for enrollment, and employer  
          commitments for on-the-job training and employment.

          Opponents argue that this bill will impose onerous requirements  
          on apprenticeship program applicants at tremendous cost to the  
          DAS, and that requiring applicants to demonstrate adequate  
          funding, facilities, participating employers will burden them  
          with additional costs just as they are getting started.  They  
          believe that this bill creates an unfair process where new  
          applicants will be placed under heavy scrutiny to which existing  
          programs were never subjected.

          Finally, opponents object that this bill does not address the  
          impact of a 1999 law that imposed a "needs test" requirement for  
          the approval of new apprenticeship programs.  Opponents contend  
          that this law has been "unfairly exploited by construction  
          unions to block the approval of new or expanding programs, thus  
          cutting competition in training and limiting the choice in  
          comprehensive training programs for people seeking a career in  
          the construction trades."  Opponents indicate that they might be  
          able to remove their opposition to this bill if amendments were  
          added to repeal the "needs test" provisions from current law.

          This bill is nearly identical to AB 734 (Evans) of 2008, which  
          was vetoed by the Governor.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 













                                                                  SB 1397
                                                                  Page E

                                                                FN: 0005479