AB 694 requires the Department of Industrial Relations to contract with UC Berkeley’s Labor Occupational Health Program and UCLA’s Labor Occupational Safety and Health Program to study understaffing and vacancies among the Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) classifications. The study must diagnose causes of vacancies, identify candidate pools and training models, and produce actionable recommendations for career pathways, recruitment, and retention.
The bill also creates an advisory committee drawn from state agencies, unions, community groups, academic and training institutions, and employer representatives to guide the study and review findings. The contractors must deliver a report within 18 months of the contract, and implementation of the work depends on a legislative appropriation.
For agencies and workforce planners, the bill is a targeted effort to make recruitment and training for technical enforcement jobs more strategic and inclusive.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill obliges the Department of Industrial Relations to contract with UC Berkeley and UCLA to analyze understaffing in Cal/OSHA's CSHO ranks, convene an advisory committee, and produce a report with specific recommendations, curriculum components, and implementation timelines. The contract must be executed within 120 days of an appropriation and the report delivered 18 months after contract execution.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), Department of Human Resources, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, representing labor unions, community-based organizations, community colleges, academic partners, and employer trade representatives. Workforce trainers, apprenticeship sponsors, and potential CSHO candidate pools (including immigrant and nontraditional workers) will also be implicated.
Why It Matters
The study could reshape how California recruits, trains, and certifies technical safety inspectors, potentially creating new apprenticeship or certification pathways and influencing hiring rules. For enforcement capacity and worker outreach, the report’s recommendations could affect inspection rates, language and cultural competency in enforcement, and long‑term staffing strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 694 sets up a time‑limited, academically led study into why Cal/OSHA lacks inspectors and how to build sustainable career pathways into the Compliance Safety and Health Officer classifications (safety engineers and industrial hygienists). The Department of Industrial Relations must sign contracts with UC Berkeley and UCLA within 120 days after the Legislature provides funding; those campuses may subcontract the work to other accredited public institutions.
The contractors will examine existing research, interview stakeholders, and analyze the division’s hiring and retention processes.
The law requires the contractors to produce a single report with a literature review, root‑cause analysis of vacancies, and pointed recommendations: recruitment and retention strategies, an implementation timeline for workforce training, candidate‑fit analyses comparing external labor pools to current minimum qualifications, and a proposed core curriculum for a training program. The study must compare possible workforce development models — including third‑party certification and apprenticeships — and map partners that could deliver training or apprenticeship seats.To steer and vet the work, the University of California must convene an advisory committee made up of state agency designees, union representatives across enforcement and administrative classifications, statewide labor organizations, community‑based nonprofits with worker‑safety experience, a California Community Colleges workforce development representative, an academic member, and an employer‑side representative with experience interacting with the division.
The committee must meet multiple times, hold at least two public meetings, and the Division, DHR, and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards must respond promptly to information requests.The bill fixes procedural deadlines: the advisory committee must meet at least once within 60 days of the contract; the contractors must finish the report 18 months after the contract and the department must post the finished report online and deliver it to the Governor and legislative committee chairs. Implementation of any part of the bill is expressly subject to an appropriation, and the UC teams must follow the committee’s recommendations only so long as doing so does not substantially increase cost or delay the report.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Department must contract with UC Berkeley and UCLA to run the study within 120 days of a legislative appropriation, and the universities may subcontract to another accredited public institution.
The contractors must deliver the final report 18 months after the contract date; the department must post the report online and send it to the Governor and chairs of the Assembly and Senate labor committees.
An advisory committee of at least 14 and up to 17 members will be convened; membership includes state agency designees, union reps for enforcement and administrative classifications, statewide labor organizations, three community‑based nonprofits, a California Community Colleges representative, an academic, and an employer representative.
The required study components include a literature review, root‑cause analysis of CSHO vacancies, candidate‑pool analysis (including linguistic and cultural fit), recommendations for recruitment and retention, proposed curriculum components, and an evaluation of apprenticeship and third‑party certification models.
All study work and committee activity are contingent on an appropriation; the UC teams must consider but are not bound by committee recommendations when recommendations would substantially raise cost or miss the report deadline.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Contracting UC Berkeley and UCLA to perform the study
This subsection requires the Department of Industrial Relations to contract with specified UC programs to evaluate understaffing and vacancies for Compliance Safety and Health Officers, and sets a 120‑day clock tied to receipt of legislative funding. The practical effect: the study will only begin if the Legislature provides express funds, and the UC programs can allocate work across campuses or subcontract to other accredited public institutions to assemble needed expertise.
Required report content and analyses
This provision lists the core deliverables: a literature review, identification of causes of vacancies, and recommendations including timelines and workforce training strategies. It also requires analyses of role responsibilities, workforce development models (apprenticeship, certification), potential partner organizations, candidate pools (with attention to linguistic/cultural competencies), engagement strategies for low‑wage and immigrant workers, and proposed curriculum components. Practically, the study is intended to be operational — not just descriptive — by prescribing curriculum and implementation steps.
Advisory committee duties and public meetings
The UC must convene an advisory committee to scope the study and review the contractors’ findings and recommendations. The committee must meet at least once during the study and at least twice to review results, including at least one public meeting during the study and an additional public meeting to gather input. The clause that agencies must provide 'timely responses' creates an expectation of cooperation from DIR, DHR, and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards during data collection.
Committee composition and geographic representation
The committee will include appointive seats from the division, DHR, and DAS; union representation across enforcement and administrative ranks; statewide labor organizations in high‑risk industries; three community‑based nonprofits; a California Community Colleges workforce development representative; an academic; and an employer representative with multi‑year experience interacting with the division. It must include at least two members representing central California or other high‑risk regions. That mix is designed to incorporate enforcement, labor, training, community, academic and employer viewpoints into study design and recommendations.
Appointment process and schedule for meetings and report
State agencies appoint their designees; unions appoint their members; certain statewide organizations are named by the UC to select their representatives; other committee seats are filled by UC selection from applications. The committee must hold an initial meeting within 60 days of contract execution. The contractors must complete and submit the report 18 months after the contract and comply with Government Code formatting and filing requirements; the department must post the report and distribute it to the Governor and legislative labor committee chairs.
Cost, implementation limits, and definitions
Implementation is explicitly contingent on a legislative appropriation. The UC teams must be guided by the advisory committee’s recommendations unless following them would substantially increase study cost or delay the report. The statute supplies definitions for key terms — academic institution, Compliance Safety and Health Officers, department, division, and the UC programs named — which limits ambiguity about who performs the work and the population under review.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA): The study could yield concrete recruitment, retention, and training strategies that improve inspector staffing and operational capacity, making enforcement more sustainable.
- Low‑wage and immigrant workers in high‑risk industries: The bill mandates analysis of linguistic and cultural competencies and worker engagement strategies, which could result in inspectors and outreach practices that better reach vulnerable workers.
- California Community Colleges and training providers: The report’s emphasis on curriculum and apprenticeship models opens opportunities to design and deliver training programs and to compete for apprenticeship or certification contracts.
- Labor unions representing enforcement and administrative classifications: Unions gain a formal seat at the table to shape training, minimum qualifications, and career‑pathway proposals that affect members’ job classifications and bargaining positions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Industrial Relations and the Division: Must support the study by providing data and staff time and will carry the administrative burden of posting and distributing the final report; they may also face costs if they adopt recommended programs without new funding.
- State budget/taxpayers: The study and any recommended workforce programs require a legislative appropriation; implementing training, apprenticeship slots, or hiring incentives would create further fiscal pressure.
- University researchers (UC Berkeley/UCLA): They must deliver a comprehensive, operational report on a fixed timeline, potentially requiring subcontracting and resource reallocation; they also bear responsibility for convening and managing the advisory committee.
- Employers and unions: Representatives will need to allocate personnel time to committee meetings and follow‑up work, and employers may face future compliance or training expectations if recommendations become policy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between rapidly rebuilding inspector capacity by broadening recruitment and creating accelerated training pathways, and preserving the technical rigor, neutrality, and merit–based hiring standards necessary for complex occupational safety enforcement; pushing too fast risks underqualified inspectors, while moving too slowly perpetuates understaffing that undermines worker protection.
The bill is narrowly focused on producing a study and recommendations, not on implementing specific hiring or training reforms. That creates a common implementation gap: the report can propose apprenticeships, curriculum, or new minimum qualifications, but any substantive changes to civil‑service rules, bargaining agreements, or state hiring processes will require additional rulemaking, funding, and negotiation.
The requirement that UC follow advisory committee recommendations only so long as they do not substantially increase cost or delay the report also creates a practical boundary: politically sensitive or expensive ideas may be downplayed to preserve timelines.
Several technical trade‑offs will complicate design choices. Speed versus rigor is one: apprenticeship and third‑party certification can expand pipelines quickly, but the Division’s CSHO roles require technical expertise (engineering, industrial hygiene) that typically depends on formal credentials and supervised experience.
The study’s mandate to analyze external candidate pools for linguistic and cultural fit raises questions about how to weigh those competencies against minimum qualifications and civil‑service standards. Finally, accurate diagnosis depends on reliable personnel and workload data from the Division and related agencies; if data are incomplete or inconsistent, recommendations may rest on thin evidence.
The bill also leaves unanswered who will pay to implement whatever the report recommends, meaning fiscal feasibility — not technical desirability — will govern what gets adopted.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.