California Assembly Bill AB73

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/7/20
• Refer: 1/11/21
• Report Pass: 2/2/21
• Refer: 2/3/21
• Report Pass: 3/29/21
• Refer: 3/30/21
• Report Pass: 4/8/21
• Refer: 4/13/21
• Refer: 4/28/21
• Report Pass: 5/20/21
• Engrossed: 6/1/21
• Refer: 6/2/21
• Refer: 6/9/21
• Report Pass: 6/24/21
• Refer: 6/24/21
• Report Pass: 6/28/21
• Refer: 6/28/21
• Report Pass: 6/29/21
• Refer: 6/29/21
• Report Pass: 7/6/21
• Refer: 7/6/21
• Report Pass: 7/8/21
• Refer: 7/8/21
• Refer: 7/15/21
• Report Pass: 8/26/21
• Enrolled: 9/10/21
• Chaptered: 9/27/21
• Passed: 9/27/21

Caption

Health emergencies: employment safety: agricultural workers: wildfire smoke.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 73, introduced by Robert Rivas, is a crucial piece of legislation aimed at enhancing the safety and health of agricultural workers during state-recognized health emergencies, such as wildfire smoke events. The bill expands the existing legal framework established by the State Department of Public Health and intertwines it with the occupational safety regulations enforced by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Notably, the bill introduces specific requirements for training that employers must provide, ensuring it is accessible and culturally appropriate for employees. The legislation directly affects agricultural workers, categorizing them as essential workers in light of their role during health emergencies. By doing so, it mandates that protective measures, including a state-mandated personal protective equipment (PPE) stockpile and training on how to respond to incidents of wildfire smoke, be readily available. The bill also establishes a Personal Protective Equipment Advisory Committee to guide the development of protocols and updates related to PPE distribution. General sentiment surrounding AB 73 appears to favor the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly amid the increasing frequency of wildfires exacerbated by climate change. Supporters assert that the findings from this bill reflect a critical recognition of the unique challenges faced by agricultural workers. These challenges, including exposure to environmental hazards, necessitate urgent legislative attention to safeguard their rights and health. A point of contention regarding AB 73 revolves around the funding implications for local agencies when the state mandates such requirements. The bill states that no reimbursement is required, which raises concerns among local governments about the financial burden it may impose on them. While proponents of the legislation argue that the health and safety of essential workers are paramount, others fear it may lead to resource strain on local entities tasked with implementing these new standards.