Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Worker Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to expand transit-worker protections and clarify systemwide restraining orders debated
Summary
AB 394 would extend enhanced penalties for battery and clarify use of temporary restraining orders (TROs) to cover transit workers beyond operators and allow systemwide application; transit agencies and unions backed the measure while ACLU and civil-rights groups warned of long, systemwide bans and punitive penalties.
Assemblymember Wilson presented AB 394, which would clarify California law to ensure enhanced battery penalties apply to all transit employees and to clarify that employers and labor representatives may seek temporary restraining orders (TROs) on behalf of transit workers. He also said the bill would permit TROs to be enforced systemwide across vehicles, stations and facilities to prevent repeat offenses.
"California's transit workers are essential personnel...they and our system riders are increasingly targeted by assault and harassment," Wilson said. "AB 394 takes several key steps to address this." He thanked transit labor and agency witnesses, and introduced representatives from the Amalgamated Transit Union and a transit general manager.
Transit agencies and unions — including County Connection, the California Conference of the ATU, California Transit Association and numerous transit operators — testified in strong support. Bill Churchill, general manager of County Connection, said his agency had obtained TROs against seven individuals in five years and that those orders reduced violent disruptions. "A transit agency's ability to seek a TRO against individuals engaging in violent behavior is an absolutely imperative tool for protecting our employees," Churchill said.
Supporters emphasized the TRO authority is discretionary and temporary and said it creates an enforcement mechanism for repeat violent actors who threaten riders or staff.
Opposition came primarily from ACLU California Action, which objected to increasing base penalties and warned that TROs could be used to impose systemwide bans lasting up to six years. "Authorizing 6 year bans on people's only mode of transportation will only lead vulnerable Californians deeper into poverty," ACLU attorney George Pramathu said, arguing judges should not be allowed to broadly bar people from accessing entire transit networks.
Committee members expressed support for transit worker safety while voicing concern about proportionality and impacts on low-income and transit-dependent riders. Several senators said they supported the bill but asked the author and sponsors to refine language on proportionality and judges' discretion before the measure moves to the judiciary committee.
The committee did not take a formal vote because a quorum was not present; the author asked for an "aye" vote when the committee returns with quorum.
