See attached.

Comments Document

See attachment.

Respected Delegates, Thank you for your time today. I am submitting comment on HB 569 Public works contracts; localities to ensure bid specifications are prevailing wage rate. I am Director of Community Development for the City of Buena Vista, one of the state’s smallest cities. I routinely work with grants for construction and public works as defined in this bill. At a time when Buena Vista’s infrastructure is in desperate need of deferred maintenance and reconstruction, and construction costs have increased far faster than inflation, this proposal will significantly drive up costs for essential public works. It burdens construction projects with unrelated socio-economic policy goals, ballooning the cost to our taxpayers of actually getting things done. The requirements of the bill will do two things: increase costs and risks for contractors (employers), and increase the costs and risks for local governments. Costs and risks for contractors: • Direct administrative cost to contractors is added to bottom line of bid, as well as cost of liability risk for noncompliance • Some contractors do not have experience or capacity to handle prevailing wage compliance, resulting in fewer bidders for City projects • § 2.2-4321.3 paragraph H appears to require all subcontractors be registered with eVA, which adds to the complexity and cost for primes • § 2.2-4321.3 paragraph K requires that all employees working on a public contract have at least 4 years of work experience, or be part of a registered apprenticeship. How is this realistic? This penalizes employers and it penalizes young workers trying to enter the field who are not part of a registered apprenticeship. Costs and risks for localities: • Direct administrative cost of more complex procurement documents and process, including wage determinations, and auditing contracted employers. The City of Buena Vista does not currently have staff who are trained in Davis-Bacon wage rule compliance, nor do we have staff with time to perform this compliance work. • Fewer bidders for projects. Buena Vista has direct experience on several contracts within the last 5 years – Federal contracting provisions like Davis-Bacon have driven away contractors interested in performing work and measurably increased the cost of awarded contract. • The City bears some liability for improperly advertised or non-compliant projects I urge Committee members to reject this bill entirely. Thank you.

My name is Robert Bernstein, and I am a practicing cardiologist at Sentara Hospitals in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Suffolk. I also serve as the Advocacy Chair for the Virginia Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, an organization that represents over 1,500 cardiovascular professionals in our state. Today, I am testifying in strong support of House Bill 627, sponsored by Delegate Herring, which will ban non-competes for all healthcare professionals. In a time when our state is suffering from a workforce shortage spanning all members of the healthcare team, it is time to protect our healthcare providers’ autonomy. Giving patients the freedom to choose the healthcare providers that best suit their needs, without the threat of non-competes, is crucial to ensure that they can pursue the care that is right for them.

See attached.

Please see the attached written testimony in support of HB 923. This testimony highlights the increasingly common use of stay-or-pay contracts and how they harm workers (even when they are not enforced), litigation involving stay-or-pay contracts that have taken place in Virginia in recent years, and calls on the subcommittee to support this vitally important legislation moving forward.

My name is Chrischa Ives, and I'm the incredibly proud mother of my daughter, Gabrielle Aldea, who was born with Hardikar Syndrome. Hardikar is so rare that very few doctors even know of its existence, but, in short, it's a syndrome that affects the entire midline of a person's body. Gabrielle had, among other things, malrotation of the intestines, a bladder the size of a thimble which necessitated the creation and care of a neobladder, hydronephrosis, liver issues so severe that she received a liver transplant at age 2, coarctation of the aorta, a bilateral cleft lip and palate, and an aneurysm in the base of her brain. After a courageous battle, Gabby passed away in 2020 at the age of 21. Parenting, in general, requires providing another human an extreme amount of time and care. Parenting a medically-fragile child means offering even more of those things while learning to handle the unexpected. When you're a single parent of a medically-fragile child, the caregiver for another adult, or trying to deal with a medical condition of your own, life gets unbelievably complicated. When Gabrielle was born, she was so sick that I was unable to return to work. When I felt able to return to work as Gabby’s condition stabilized I found that despite my skills and qualifications, I was denied employment when I told potential workplaces about my daughter and her medical needs. There were times when my schedule could be consistent, but there were also times I'd need to be off to take her to appointments or to stay with her when she was sick. Despite my qualifications and a proven commitment to go above and beyond what was asked of me from a job, no employer was willing or able to hire me because of the time off I'd need. If I had had guaranteed access to paid family and medical leave, employers would have had certainty of me as an employee, and I would have had the ability to earn a living while taking care of my daughter. My story is unfortunately not unique, too many families across the country and the Commonwealth have experienced similar struggles. The current system is pushing caregivers, particularly women, out of the workforce. Paid leave for all means care for all. It means caring for each other in our times of need. And it means the world to individuals and families who go without it every day in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It's time to do better. I am calling on members of the General Assembly to support HB 1270 so no other parent has to make the sacrifices I made.

Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of House Bill 1207. I serve as Virginia Director for CASA, an immigrant rights organization working with Virginia's construction workers, restaurant employees, home health aides, and service workers. I witness daily the impossible choices families face without paid leave. Last year, Maria, a Northern Virginia housekeeper, faced a devastating choice when her mother suffered a stroke: care for her mother or keep working to pay rent. She chose her mother and lost her job within a week. By the time her mother stabilized, Maria was three months behind on rent and faced eviction. This is not isolated—this is reality for hundreds of thousands of Virginia families. Only 27% of workers in the lowest wage quartile have access to paid family leave, compared to 58% in the highest quartile. The families who can least afford to lose income have no safety net. For immigrant families, language barriers, immigration status concerns, and cultural caregiving expectations make this crisis even more severe. Without paid leave, construction workers return to physically demanding jobs before injuries heal, risking permanent disability. Parents managing chronic conditions delay medical care, leading to complications and higher healthcare costs. Domestic violence survivors cannot afford to miss work to seek safety. Thousands of parents return to work days after childbirth because they cannot afford to stay home longer. HB1207 addresses these crises while supporting employers. The fair contribution structure includes special provisions for small businesses. Studies show paid leave programs improve employee retention while reducing costly turnover. Twelve states and DC have enacted these programs successfully—they work. For working families, paid leave means a new mother can bond with her baby without fearing eviction. A son can care for his dying father without losing his job. A survivor can seek safety without choosing between protection and poverty. This is dignity. This is economic security. I urge this Committee to advance HB1207 and give all Virginia families the paid leave they need and deserve. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Luis Aguilar Virginia Director, CASA

This written testimony is hereby submitted in favor/support of HB1207 to implement a paid family medical leave program in the Commonwealth.

Voices for Virginia strongly supports the establishment of a comprehensive paid family and medical leave program in the Commonwealth. Too many Virginians are forced to choose between caring for a new child, a seriously ill loved one, or their own health and maintaining a paycheck—an impossible choice that disproportionately harms women, low-wage workers, and caregivers. Paid family and medical leave improves health outcomes, strengthens workforce participation, and benefits employers by reducing turnover and increasing retention. A statewide program would promote economic stability, support small businesses through a shared system, and ensure workers can meet family and medical needs without financial hardship. Voices for Virginia urges policymakers to advance a strong, equitable paid family and medical leave program that supports workers, families, and Virginia’s economy.

Voices for Virginia strongly supports the establishment of a comprehensive paid family and medical leave program in the Commonwealth. Too many Virginians are forced to choose between caring for a new child, a seriously ill loved one, or their own health and maintaining a paycheck—an impossible choice that disproportionately harms women, low-wage workers, and caregivers. Paid family and medical leave improves health outcomes, strengthens workforce participation, and benefits employers by reducing turnover and increasing retention. A statewide program would promote economic stability, support small businesses through a shared system, and ensure workers can meet family and medical needs without financial hardship. Voices for Virginia urges policymakers to advance a strong, equitable paid family and medical leave program that supports workers, families, and Virginia’s economy.

The National Partnership for Women & Families appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony in support of HB 1207. This bill would help keep families from deciding between their paycheck or caring for themselves and their loved ones. We respectfully urge a favorable report on the bill.

(see attached)

My name is Greg Mourad, and I am Vice President of the National Right to Work Committee. I am here to speak against House Bill 1263, which would force all Virginia public employees under union monopoly control. It’s just plain wrong for workers to be forced under union monopoly control as a condition of working in public service. Under exclusive representation, better termed monopoly bargaining, individual workers lose the ability to choose their own representation -- this is a right even a convicted criminal retains. But in addition to imposing union monopoly representation on public employees, this bill will also undercut the people’s elected representatives’ responsibility to set a budget, while closing out the public from the decision-making process. Indeed, that’s exactly what the U.S. District Court said in upholding North Carolina’s law banning public sector bargaining. The court ruled: “[T]o the extent that public employees gain power through recognition and collective bargaining, other interest groups with a right to a voice in the running of the government may be left out of vital political decisions.” And monopoly bargaining gives public employee union bosses a second bite at the apple that’s completely unique among all stakeholders. They not only can lobby and electioneer like anyone else, but under this bill union bosses can by law bind the government in contracts. Meanwhile, regardless of any legal prohibition, passing this bill opens the door to public employee strikes -- since 2023 we’ve seen illegal walkouts everywhere from Clark County, Nevada to Fresno, California to four school districts in Massachusetts. And the fact is, this legislation will be a disaster for Virginia taxpayers. Years ago, the Heritage Foundation found that public sector monopoly bargaining costs the average family of four as much as $3,000 in taxes per year in states that have passed it for all government workers. Meanwhile here in Virginia, Loudoun County schools had to hire thirteen new staff and increase spending by $3.3 million just to implement monopoly bargaining. This bill would repeat those costs in county after county, town after town, in places that have rejected bargaining due to the cost. Meanwhile, the people’s elected representatives will lose flexibility to make needed changes the next time there’s a recession. These are all big reasons why even many strong proponents of monopoly bargaining in the private sector have opposed public sector bargaining. For example, Franklin Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees, “all Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” It’s wrong for workers, wrong for taxpayers, and harmful to our representative form of government. I urge you to kill this bill or anything like it.

Dear Members of House Commerce and Labor, Subcommittee #2 As the lobbyist for Prince William County Schools, I am submitting the following comments in opposition to HB 1263, at least as it relates to public schools of the Commonwealth. More specifically, PWCS opposes the following provisions: [at line 673] § 40.1-57.12. Determination of appropriate bargaining unit At Section D.1., PWCS does not believe that principals and assistant principals should be represented as a bargaining unit. As such, these positions represent a high level of management just below the school board and superintendent and, thus, should not be part of the collective bargaining arrangement. 40.1-57.16. Negotiation and impasse procedures [at line 673] Section A.4. This provision requires the parties to submit to binding arbitration. PWCS submits that this provision, as it relates to public schools, is unconstitutional in that it requires the elected school board to delegate its responsibilities vested in it under Article VIII, Section 7 of the Virginia Constitution. Further, a school board has no power to levy taxes in Virginia and is therefore wholly dependent upon state and local funding over which it has very little control, if any. As a result, it may lack the ability to fund a binding award made by an arbitrator. [at line 680] Section A.5. This provision restricts the arbitrator’s finding to either the final offer of the employer or the employee organization, and nothing in between. Since at line 740, the terms of an agreement remain in effect until superseded by a new agreement, there is no incentive for the employee organization to submit a reasonable final offer. Thank you for your consideration. Jim Council 804.347.0503

Hi my name is Sean Cassar, I live in District 80. I am the labor co-chair for the Richmond chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and appear before you today to read a letter from our members who are state employees: As state employees, we are excited about the collective bargaining rights proposed for public sector workers and greatly urge your support. This is a right that everyone deserves and that a majority of states provide. We want to thank the sponsors of this legislation, all those who worked to draft it and lobbied and organized for years to get to this moment. In anticipation of its success and in comparing this resolution to other states there are a few confusing sentences and unnecessary restrictions we’ve found. Before we start, we want to state plainly that we will support this bill in whichever form it appears but take this opportunity to voice our concerns. First we are concerned with the language in §40.1-57.12. C which mandates the rigidity of cross department and agency bargaining units and ask that you provide more flexibility in the language for the bargaining units of state employees. With over 100 executive branch agencies and subagencies that the provisions apply to, it will be challenging to exercise the collective bargaining rights provided. Additionally, the Governor is not required to make appointments to the Public Employee Relations Board until October of 2027. This means it will be well over a year after the bill is effective before public workers can exercise collective bargaining rights. The delay is concerning as it also would delay our understanding of how to proceed with organizing on the ground. Lastly, the retention of the strike policy is disappointing. The best way for workers to protect their rights is by withholding our labor. The best way to avoid a strike is to bargain in good faith and not retaliate or infringe on labor rights. Further, with no language outlining investigation processes, this provision can and will be weaponized by management as we’ve seen happen on multiple occasions in Richmond Public Schools. We hope you consider our suggestions as this bill will affect the rights afforded to us, and we have exact language changes we recommend which some of you may have received already and can provide if you are interested. Again, we will support this bill in whichever form it appears but urge tightening up of language and expansion of rights. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am a graduate worker in Engineering asking you to vote YES on HB 1263 to allow public sector workers to collectively bargain. Last year, a friend in another lab had an advisor who had to leave the department because he was not able to secure funding. Through no fault of her own, his student had to graduate on an accelerated timeline and had less than 6 months to complete what takes most students about 1-2 years. She also had to balance this with teaching (which is atypical for a student in their final year but necessary for her to be funded her last semester) and job searching. She was exhausted as a result of having to work around the clock to manage these responsibilities. Unfortunately, graduate workers being overloaded with teaching and research responsibilities during their final year has happened in at least three different departments during my time here. There is no way a graduate student can provide the best possible teaching for undergrads while exhausted and overworked. Collective bargaining for graduate workers would allow us to negotiate a contract that guarantees funding for the duration of the PhD. This would ensure that grad workers do not need to overwork themselves to graduate on an accelerated timeline in circumstances like these, while improving quality of education for students at Virginia's public universities.

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice opposes this bill. Medicaid sets the reimbursement rates for personal care services. According to the Guide House report these services should be increased 42% to allow proper compensation for all staff working in this setting. Collective bargaining will not solve the underpayment issues or staff salaries.

Please Oppose this bill those of us from states like NY are familiar with the power and pitfalls of public sector collective bargaining. In the 1970s in New York State alone, there were, on average, 20 teacher strikes a year, and who doesn't remember the trash piled high on city streets as sanitation workers walked out. Think that can't happen here because the law makes strikes illegal? Think again, didn't the teacher’s union keep schools closed for nearly 2 years refusing to go back to in-person learning and in our city workers not pick up our trash in protest for "Hazardous duty pay?” Same in Wisconsin when Governor Walker signed legislation into law to limit collective bargaining to just wages, thousands of teachers called in sick and showed up at the captial building in protest, Collective bargaining is not about workers rights, it's about control. Collective bargaining with public-employee unions would mean taking some of the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring them to union officials, with whom the public has vested no such authority During a downturn in the economy New York was bailed out by the federal government after Governor Cuomo was prevented from getting concessions from the union by an amendment inserted into law for union contracts. New York was bailed out by the federal government after Governor Cuomo was prevented from getting concessions by an amendment inserted into law for union contracts. In Miami the police union sued after the city made changes to their union contract saying the city failed to raise taxes, lay off non-union workers and put in speed cameras. Vallejo, California filed bankruptcy after trying for 3 years to negotiate with unions. Allowing unions the ability to collectively bargain for employees increases the cost of government. Every dollar spent on administering union contracts is a dollar NOT spent on educating a child or providing city services. Please vote NO!

Comments Document

I am writing in strong support of HB 1313. I have served for over 23 years as a firefighter and paramedic in Arlington County, and I currently reside in Springfield, Virginia (ZIP 22152). I am also a member of IAFF Local 2800 and am submitting this testimony in my personal capacity. In the fire service, mental injury is a line-of-duty injury. The trauma we experience is not usually the result of a single dramatic event, but the cumulative effect of repeated exposure to violence, death, and human suffering over many years. Pediatric calls, violent incidents where responders and patients are both at risk, and repeated medical calls involving death are routine parts of this profession. Over time, these experiences take a serious psychological toll, even on highly trained and resilient professionals. Under current workers’ compensation law, first responders frequently face claim denials based on arguments that mental health conditions are “pre-existing” or not connected to a specific physical injury. This standard does not reflect how psychological injury actually develops in emergency responders. Trauma accumulates gradually, and by the time symptoms become disabling, they are often rooted in years of job-related exposure. I have personally dealt with severe anxiety, mood instability, and depression stemming from repeated exposures in my career. I have also seen many colleagues struggle with similar issues, and a colleague from my recruit class recently died by suicide after nearly 23 years of service. While every case is different, it is clear that untreated occupational trauma can escalate into life-threatening crises if early treatment is not accessible. These injuries also affect families. Long hours, staffing shortages, and mandatory overtime already place strain on households. When untreated mental health injuries are added, spouses and children live with the emotional unpredictability that comes with cumulative trauma. Supporting mental health care for first responders supports family stability and helps retain experienced professionals in public safety roles. HB 1313 appropriately addresses this gap by clarifying that exacerbation of PTSD, anxiety, and depressive disorders from repeated occupational exposures can qualify as compensable injuries, allowing responders to access care earlier rather than being forced to deteriorate before qualifying for help. I respectfully urge the committee to report HB 1313 favorably and allow it to advance.