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