Walters: California unions want to unwind a landmark pension reform. Who will foot the bill?

The 1998 election of Gray Davis as governor was something of a fluke.

Davis had climbed the political ladder one rung at a time, from serving as Gov. Jerry Brown’s chief of staff to a seat in the state Assembly, then a stint as state controller and another as lieutenant governor.

The 1998 primary election was a three-way Democratic slugfest pitting Davis against two wealthy, self-financed rivals, airline executive Al Checchi and Jane Harman, a Southern California member of Congress. Checchi and Harman poured millions of dollars into their campaigns, spending on media attacks against each other.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The press termed it a “murder-suicide pact” that allowed Davis to win the nomination. He then defeated Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren.

“We got a lot of breaks in this campaign,” Davis’ campaign manager, Garry South, later acknowledged. One big break was that, as Checchi and Harman were spending heavily, the state’s labor unions backed Davis with millions of campaign dollars.

It was not unlike the governor’s race this year when most unions rallied behind Xavier Becerra, rather than billionaire Tom Steyer.

Davis was a politician with an accountant’s focus on political debts — who owed him and what he owed others. Accordingly, after election, Davis quickly showed his appreciation by delivering two high-priority — and high-cost — benefit increases for unions: one in unemployment insurance payments, the other in pensions for public employees.

At the time, the public was told that both could be enacted without any substantial impacts on employers or taxpayers, but both assurances were later proven to be false.

When the Great Recession struck California a half-decade later, unemployment insurance reserves were quickly exhausted and ever since the program has survived on loans from the federal government. The state Unemployment Insurance Fund now owes the feds well over $20 billion.

The recession also clobbered earnings by the two immense public employee pension funds, the California Public Employee Retirement System and the California State Teachers Retirement System, generating demands that the state shore up their financial viability.

Davis wasn’t around when the benefits he enacted became unaffordable. In 2003, one year into his second term as governor, voters recalled him and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as his successor.

The twin crises in unemployment insurance and pension benefits were left to Jerry Brown, Davis’ old boss, who regained the governorship in 2010. Brown did nothing on unemployment insurance but in 2012 pushed a landmark pension reform through the Legislature.

The California Public Employees Pension Reform Act contained some curbs on “pension spiking” but more importantly increased employees’ shares of costs and reduced pension eligibility and benefits for future employees. The teachers’ pension fund was shored up with increases in contributions from the state and local school systems.

The unions that had supported Davis didn’t like Brown’s reform and some challenged it in court, particularly the crackdown on pension spiking, but the lawsuits failed.

Fast forward 14 years.

Public employee unions, particularly those representing police and fire personnel, still chafe at Brown’s reform and are trying to loosen its limits on their pensions through Assembly Bill 1383, which sailed through the Assembly on a 70-2 vote. Many Republicans voted for the bill, which is now pending in the Senate.

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, an Inglewood Democrat, is carrying the measure for a coalition of public safety unions, which argue that the reform has saved billions of dollars and has outlived its usefulness. An equally large coalition of local governments is opposing the bill, citing its potential costs and how it will affect their budgets, but so far to no avail.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California unions, hospitals strike deal — but billionaire tax heads to ballot

California hospitals and the state’s largest health workers union reached an agreement Thursday to pull two competing initiatives from the November ballot hours before a state deadline. But a separate measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires remains headed toward voters, potentially reshaping how California funds healthcare.

That measure would levy a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires if approved by voters. Supporters estimate the tax would bring in $100 billion to replace recent state and federal healthcare cuts. The union accused Gov. Gavin Newsom, who tried to strike a last-minute deal to kill the ballot measure, of having “no plan” to prevent cuts projected to lose jobs and leave millions of Californians uninsured, according to recent projections.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“We thought it was important to do everything we could to try to solve that problem,” said Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West.

In addition to the wealth tax, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West had qualified an initiative to limit how much hospital executives are paid; while the California Hospital Association hit back with a proposal to limit the union’s political spending without member approval. Those two measures will no longer appear on the ballot under a deal brokered by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO.

Union members argued that money has been siphoned away from patient care through federal and state budget cuts as well as business decisions that support costly executive salaries. In turn, hospitals and some experts contended that capping leadership salaries would drain talent from pricey California and result in worse patient care.

Initially the two sides were adamant that they weren’t interested in negotiating, but Thursday’s agreement is the latest reminder that few things are fixed in Sacramento politics. Both sides had raised tens-of-millions of dollars to support their proposals.

Carmela Coyle, hospital association president and CEO, said in a statement that the agreement would “ensure high-quality health care services are accessible throughout California.”

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the labor federation, said the deal would support “quality healthcare and good union jobs to Californians.”

A history of dealmaking

This marked the sixth time the union has attempted to cap healthcare executive salaries at $450,000 through state or local ballot measures.

For decades the union led by Regan has used ballot initiatives to gain leverage over the healthcare industry, broker deals with lawmakers and push its political agenda forward.

Voters may remember dialysis center initiatives appearing on three back-to-back ballots in 2018, 2020 and 2022. All three failed, and the dialysis industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat them.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Cal Fire wants a pay match with local departments. Can California afford it?

An Assembly bill increasing pay for state firefighters just passed the Senate floor and will soon be on the governor’s desk. The bill is intended to get Cal Fire’s pay within 15% of benchmark local fire departments such as Los Angeles, Fresno and San Francisco. Tim Edwards, Cal Fire Local 2881 president, says that the current salary calculation formula, which matches firefighter pay with other state workers salaries, does not account for inflation or the amount of overtime state firefighters are working.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“A top-ranked Cal Fire engineer with a family of four qualified for free school lunch because of his income, that tells you how much we’re struggling.” Edwards said. “If you look at other departments, over the last few years, they’ve gotten significant raises to match inflation, and our work has not gotten lighter; in fact, it’s gotten worse.” The bill is the second iteration of AB 1309, which was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. In his veto order, Newsom said that AB 1309’s automatic salary floor “undermined” typical state-union negotiation processes. Newsom has not said if the newer version of the bill quells this concern. The new bill, AB 2129, cites the same wage increase goals as AB 1309, but opens the door for negotiations with a compensation benchmark intended to help retain Cal Fire employees who would otherwise be lost to higher-paying departments. According to the bill, the state would have to produce an annual average salary report for the 20 local departments that Cal Fire is stacked against and make sure state firefighter pay is within 15% of that average. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the bill would cost $373.4 million to $609.1 million from the general fund. Assemblymember Heath Flora, R-Ripon, the bill’s author, said he anticipates the actual cost of the bill to be much lower than the projection, and that he only foresees opposition from the Department of Finance.

Click here to read the full article in the Sacramento Bee

Powerful California institutions backed Swalwell’s rise. Now they’re facing questions

  • Former Rep. Eric Swalwell appeared positioned to lead California’s Democratic gubernatorial field after powerful state institutions and Newsom allies rallied behind the anti-Trump darling before his campaign’s sudden collapse.
  • Explosive allegations that Swalwell sexually assaulted a former staffer and acted inappropriately with other women prompted his exit from the race and resignation from Congress, allegations he denies.
  • Democratic leaders and the groups that backed him — including labor unions and interest groups — now face scrutiny over whether they missed red flags or ignored warnings about his rumored behavior.

SACRAMENTO — Before it all came crashing down, Eric Swalwell appeared on the cusp of rising to the top of the Democratic field in the California governor’s race.

Swalwell had just announced a statewide tour and aired his first ad. The former prosecutor and Dublin city councilman launched his campaign on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in November, a comfortable setting for a politician who’d built a national reputation by appearing on cable news shows to attack President Trump.

Influential forces in Sacramento had begun coalescing behind the then-Bay Area congressman, including some consultants and advisors close to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom hasn’t endorsed, but his associates’ involvement lent credibility to Swalwell.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Swalwell’s campaign quickly collapsed with the explosive allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staffer and had acted inappropriately with other women who were just beginning political careers. Swalwell denies the allegations but dropped out of the race for governor and resigned his seat in the House.

The whiplash over Swalwell’s rapid rise and fall has Democratic leaders facing questions about whether they had a blind spot about his alleged behavior.

His onetime allies in Congress are being asked whether they knew about his conduct, which has been described as an open secret on Capitol Hill. Unions who backed Swalwell have fled, and political consultants are returning donations.

California Federation of Labor Unions President Lorena Gonzalez, whose group endorsed Swalwell and three others in the race, said she confronted Swalwell more than a month ago after hearing rumors about womanizing and illicit photos.

“He’s a liar,” Gonzalez said. “He’s just a very skillful politician who did not tell the truth even when asked directly.”

Though he was little known in much of California, Swalwell, 45, was a youthful and fresh face in a field of candidates, many of them veteran politicians, when he entered the contest.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

A new California law gives the state more power over workplaces. Trump is suing to block it

In summary

A new law backed by California unions gives a state board the right to regulate working conditions and labor rights as the federal labor board’s fate is in limbo.

Welcome to CalMatters, the only nonprofit newsroom devoted solely to covering issues that affect all Californians. Sign up for WhatMatters to receive the latest news and commentary on the most important issues in the Golden State.

California under a law taking effect today seeks to uphold the labor and unionization rights of private-sector employees, as the federal agency that has held that power for decades is in limbo. 

But the new law’s future is unclear because the Trump administration is challenging it. 

The law, which grants more powers to the California Public Employment Relations Board, is a response to the National Labor Relations Board lacking a quorum.

President Donald Trump fired the NLRB’s chairperson, Gwynne Wilcox, days after he began his second term in January. His two nominees to the board have yet to be confirmed, so the federal board has been without the three members it needs for a quorum for months. 

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, the Inglewood Democrat who wrote the bill, said when the governor signed it in September that “California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize due to employer intransigence or federal inaction.”

The NLRB sued California over the law in October, saying in its lawsuit that the state is trying to assert authority over “areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

On the legal challenge to the law, Terry Schanz, McKinnor’s chief of staff, referred CalMatters to the state attorney general. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office is responsible for defending the law in court. A spokesperson for Bonta said the office would have nothing to say about it. 

With the NLRB unable to fulfill its duties, states are trying to fill the gap in enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, which Congress passed in 1935. But labor experts contacted by CalMatters do not have high hopes for the California law, which is similar to a law passed in New York this year. They said courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled that states cannot decide matters pertaining to federal labor law because of preemption, the doctrine that a higher authority of law overrides a lower authority.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Is California’s most politically aggressive labor union finally playing defense? 

Is California’s most politically aggressive labor union finally playing defense?

new ballot measure, filed by the California Hospital Association, targets large healthcare unions such as SEIU local United Healthcare Workers West (UHW), claiming the unions’ spending on harmful ballot measures has diminished the quality of patient care and threatened healthcare workers’ jobs.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

If passed, it would require these large unions to take a vote before spending members’ money on ballot measures, as well as provide annual disclosures to their members on such spending.

It’s overdue accountability for the SEIU, and for SEIU-UHW in particular. In the past 13 years, the union has shipped north of $50 million in members’ dues dollars to ballot measures, many of them in states far from California. Meanwhile, the union has faced controversy after controversy in its own ranks, including high-profile allegations of harassment in the union’s leadership.

Allegations of worker abuse from a labor union that claims to stand up for workers is flagrant hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is standard for SEIU and its high-profile affiliates and locals.

Take Workers United, the SEIU affiliate best known for its Starbucks organizing campaign. Worker United has long billed itself as one of America’s most progressive unions, stating they are “built upon a foundation of social justice.” But that foundation seems to crumble when the union has a financial stake.

Workers United holds a 40% stake in Amalgamated Bank, which calls itself “America’s socially responsible bank.” That “social responsibility” extends to politics; most recently, the bank’s largest shareholder criticized the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) handling of illegal immigration.

A little digging from the Center for Union Facts shows that the bank and the union are playing both sides: Amalgamated Bank report financial holdings immigration enforcement contractors, with nearly $10 million invested in ICE contractors.

The bank’s Q1 2025 holdings report for the Securities and Exchange Commission reveals that it reports investments worth 38,481 shares worth $1.12 million in the GEO Group, which manages ICE holding centers. It also has 31,184 shares of ICE detention center operator CoreCivic worth $633,000.

Amalgamated Bank also reported 15,429 shares worth $8,115,000 in Axon Enterprises, a provider of equipment to ICE–including tasers–and 902 shares worth $27,000 in Cadre Holdings, which supplies tear gas to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection as well as ICE.

The hypocrisy on display from the SEIU has contributed to a decline in union membership, which is now at an all-time low. Last year, the overall union membership rate was 9.9%, according to federal data, with 14.3 million wage and salary workers within the ranks. A little more than four decades ago, those numbers were 20.1% and 17.7 million.

Membership has suffered even more outside of government employment. Only 5.9% of private-sector workers belong to a union. That’s also an all-time low, far off the 15.5% of 40 years ago and the 9% of 2000.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

800,000 rideshare workers in California can unionize under new law

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills on Friday, one that allows drivers to form unions and another that lowers the insurance threshold for drivers.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed companion bills on Friday, Oct. 3, allowing hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers to unionize while lowering their insurance threshold.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The union-backed Assembly Bill 1340, sponsored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, and Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, establishes the framework for more than 800,000 rideshare drivers to unionize and negotiate for higher wages, health benefits and workplace rights.

Lyft- and Uber-backed Senate Bill 371, authored by State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Santa Rosa, lowers the cost of rideshare services by reducing the insurance requirement that drivers carry $1 million in coverage for accidents caused by other drivers who are uninsured or underinsured. The agreement lowers that threshold to $60,000 in uninsured motorist coverage per individual and $300,000 per accident.

“Donald Trump is holding the government hostage and stripping away worker protections,” Newsom said in a statement Friday. “In California, we’re doing the opposite: proving government can deliver — giving drivers the power to unionize while we continue our work to lower costs for families.

“That’s the difference between chaos and competence,” the governor said.

Also see: Lyft, Uber drivers push for $1.3 billion wage settlement

Taken together, the two bills represent a compromise that “lowers costs for riders while creating stronger voices for drivers — demonstrating how industry, labor, and lawmakers can work together to deliver real solutions,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for California, in a statement late Friday.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

New audit flags more than $200,000 in spending by former LAFD union president

The parent organization of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s labor union has doubled down on allegations that the union’s top official failed to properly document hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card transactions.

The International Assn. of Fire Fighters, which oversees the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, suspended President Freddy Escobar and two other union officials last month over “serious problems” with missing receipts identified in a wide-ranging audit going back to 2018.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Auditors reexamined their findings after Escobar showed up to UFLAC headquarters last month — news cameras in tow — with a thumb drive and stacks of photocopied receipts that he claimed would clear him.

In a letter last week reviewed by The Times, the IAFF’s auditors concluded that even with the new materials, Escobar failed to properly document more than $212,000 worth of credit card expenses. They said they were not provided full access to UFLAC’s internal expense system for their first report and said Escobar engaged in a “flurry of activity” to reconcile the transactions in recent months. In the months after auditors left UFLAC’s offices in December 2024, Escobar directed his staff by email to look for missing receipts, according to the letter.

“Escobar — with the assistance of UFLAC staff — worked feverishly to reconcile some of his past credit card expenditures,” IAFF General President Edward Kelly and General Secretary Treasurer Frank Líma said in a note this week to the local union’s members.

Of the 1,974 Escobar credit card transactions auditors recently reviewed, totaling $312,985, only 889, or $100,824 worth, were fully documented with receipts and a business purpose, the auditors’ letter said.

The initial audit reviewed 1,957 of those transactions, which amounted to $311,498, and found that only 428, or $45,635, were properly documented.

“Our conclusions set forth in our May 1, 2025 audit report remain the same,” the auditors wrote in the letter. “It appears that Escobar repeatedly failed to comply with his fiduciary duties and obligations, and proper controls were not in place for compliance with state and federal laws and regulations and UFLAC policies on expense reimbursements and expenditure of UFLAC funds due to lack of receipts and documentation of business purpose.”

Escobar said in a text message that the allegations against him were political because he had complained that the LAFD was underfunded and did not have adequate resources.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Southern California union leaders say 2025 labor surge is most in decades

California is seeing a notable increase in strike activity across private and public sectors as affordability challenges rise for thousands of workers

Angie Ayala, a pharmacy technician at Ralph’s Fare Fresh in Pasadena, drives in from her Hollywood apartment for a five-day-a-week job that pays $24.10 hourly.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

She and her husband are raising two daughters, 10 and 6, in a one-bedroom apartment.

Not long ago, Ayala bought an upright piano and pushed it under the steps that lead to her upper floor apartment. She’d like to get paid more so that she can hire a piano teacher for her oldest daughter — maybe even save to buy a home. But her budget is too tight, and there’s pressure at work.

“It’s a stressful job when the pharmacy is understaffed,” Ayala said. “We fill between 125 and 150 prescriptions a day, make calls to doctors and nurses and insurance — doing two or three things at once,” Ayala said. “There’s a lot more work, especially if you have to deal with vaccine appointments.”

Ayala is among nearly 200,000 union members across California involved in picketing or striking for better pay and benefits, according to estimates provided by union leaders. In the case of Ayala, her union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, is locked in heated talks with major grocery chains in Southern California over an overdue, three-year contract for 65,000 unionized workers. They’ve worked without a contract since March 2.

Union leaders are taking note of this year’s surge in activity — more than any they’ve seen in decades.

Randy Korgan, the Teamsters national director in charge of organizing Amazon, said he’s been an organizer for more than 30 years but hasn’t ever seen this level of “militancy or frustration.” He said workers can’t afford to buy a home in the community where they work with Amazon, but yet the online retailer is charging more for products and services while “paying less for labor and devaluing the jobs.”

Kent Wong, the project director for Labor and Community Partnerships and former director at the UCLA Labor Center, said he also is seeing a rise in union activity.

“We are seeing the level of activism in California more pronounced, in large part because we have larger and more robust unions,” Wong said. “Part of the problem relates to horrendous targeting and victimization of immigrant workers. They are a critical part of the California workforce, and this whole notion that you can develop policies of mass deportation without a negative impact on agricultural, manufacturing or service sectors, is not possible. These policies are counterproductive.”

Here are brief descriptions of major labor negotiations underway in California:

Click here to read the full article in the Press Enterprise

California lawmakers to propose legislation giving ride-hailing drivers right to unionize

California lawmakers are pursuing legislation that could give drivers for apps like Uber and Lyft the ability to form unions, while still being classified as independent contractors.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) plan to introduce Assembly Bill 1340, also titled the Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act, on Tuesday.

The legislation would allow drivers to negotiate pay as well as other terms of their agreements with app-based companies, exempting them from state and federal antitrust laws that would prohibit such activity, according to a draft reviewed by The Times.

“Fundamentally what this bill seeks to do is empower rideshare drivers to advocate for better working conditions,” Wicks said in an interview.

The proposal does not include food delivery drivers.

The exact process of how collective bargaining would be overseen by the state is not outlined in the proposal.

Wicks and Berman said that they expect those details to be hashed out during the legislative process, with conversations from all stakeholders, including drivers, ride-hailing companies and Service Employees International Union California, which is backing the bill.

Typically, antitrust laws would prevent collective action by independent contractors. For example, Seattle faced litigation when it attempted to establish a driver bargaining model through a local ordinance in 2015.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an Uber subsidiary successfully challenged the law, arguing that bargaining by independent-contractor drivers amounted to illegal concerted action and price fixing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed with the city’s position that it had created a state-supervised regulatory program, finding that it was not exempt from antitrust law.

Drivers for Uber and Lyft are considered independent contractors under a voter-approved state law — Proposition 22 — that went into effect in late 2020. The law originally had barred collective bargaining over drivers’ compensation, benefits and working conditions, but an appeals court struck down the provision, arguing it inappropriately limited the California Legislature’s authority.

The state Supreme Court in a ruling last year largely upheld Proposition 22 but did not address the collective bargaining provision.

SEIU California contends that the Legislature has the authority to allow drivers to collectively bargain, based on the appeals court ruling. However, if the bill is ultimately approved by lawmakers, it’s possible ride-hailing companies might challenge it.

“A union is the only pathway for 600,000 rideshare drivers to improve their pay and working conditions under Prop 22,” said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, in an emailed statement.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times