BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 56|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 56
Author: Corbett (D)
Amended: 6/20/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUST. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-2, 3/9/11
AYES: Lieu, DeSaulnier, Leno, Yee
NOES: Wyland, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 25-15, 5/5/11
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De Le�n,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu,
Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price,
Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Vargas, Wolk, Wright, Yee
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Cannella, Dutton,
Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Harman, Huff, La Malfa, Runner,
Strickland, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-27, 8/30/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Apprenticeship oversight
SOURCE : State Buildings and Construction Trades Council
DIGEST : This bill streamlines auditing requirements of
the California Apprenticeship Council.
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
2
Assembly Amendments delete the provision which require that
no two employee representatives may be from the same
national or international labor organizer.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1. Provides a framework for promoting and developing
apprenticeship training through the California
Apprenticeship Council (CAC) and the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) within the Department of
Industrial Relations. DAS enforces apprenticeship
standards for, among other things, working conditions,
classroom instruction and the specific skills required
for state certification as a journeyperson in an
apprentice occupation.
2. Requires that all apprenticeship programs be approved by
the Chief of the DAS (Chief) and empowers the Chief to
approve apprenticeship programs in any trade anywhere in
the state, including cities and trade areas, if the
apprentice training is "needs based" to justify the
creation of a program, as specified.
3. Requires that the DAS to randomly audit apprenticeship
programs every five years, as specified.
This bill:
1. Requires the following information to be submitted to
the Chief 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 as to ensure, to the extent
feasible, that the new apprentices will be employed
continuously throughout the term of the
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
3
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.
2. Requires the Chief 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.
3. Eliminates the requirement in existing law that the 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
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
4
a five-year period, it shall schedule an audit within
three months; and,
F. If DAS determines that a program that has had at
least two graduating classes has an annual apprentice
completion rate below 50 percent of the average
completion rate, it shall schedule the program for an
audit within three months.
4. 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.
5. Require programs to report apprentice registration,
change of address, graduation, and termination data to
DAS on a monthly basis in an electronic format.
Prior Legislation
SB 1397 (Corbett), 2009-10 Session, was identical to this
bill. It was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger because the
bill "imposes new requirements on new or expanding programs
without subjecting existing programs to the same level of
scrutiny" and did not address the "needs-based" conditions
for apprenticeship program approval.
AB 734 (Evans), 2007-08 Session, was nearly identical to
this bill. It was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger for
similar reason discussed above.
AB 947 (Niello), 2007-08 Session, would have removed the
"needs-based" conditions from the approval of
apprenticeship programs. The first policy committee
hearing for the bill was cancelled at the author's request.
AB 2929 (Laird), 2005-06 Session, contained language on the
auditing of apprenticeship programs that was very similar
to AB 734. It was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger
because it did not address the "needs-based" conditions for
approving an apprenticeship program in the building and
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
5
construction trades.
AB 51 (Koretz), 2005-06 Session, which was similar to AB
2837 (discussed below), was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger because he did not feel that there was
"compelling evidence that would warrant the extensive
reporting requirements" in the bill.
AB 2837 (Firebaugh), 2003-04 Session, would have, among
other things, required any building and construction trades
apprenticeship program to graduate at least one apprentice
within a two-year period in order to be eligible to receive
state reimbursement. It was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, as he viewed the bill as unnecessary in
view of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency's
development of quality control measures for apprenticeship
programs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Per Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
analysis 6/22/11)
State Buildings and Construction Trades Council (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
California Conference of Carpenters
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
OPPOSITION : (Per Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
analysis 6/22/11)
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that this bill is
necessary because the DAS 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, proponents
argue that it is important that we know how this
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
6
substantial investment to spent. Proponents 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 apprentice applicants,
an estimate of the number of apprentices for enrollment,
and employer commitments for on-the-job training and
employment.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-27, 8/30/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V.
Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
CONTINUED
SB 56
Page
7
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller,
Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth,
Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gorell
PQ:kc 8/30/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED