Bad labor bills brought back from the dead

It’s not all doom and gloom though

By Johnnie Pina, legislative affairs lobbyist, and Brian Hendershot, Cal Cities Advocate managing editor

History, some argue, repeats itself. So too does the California Legislature. Lawmakers have reintroduced several vetoed measures that would strain local services and budgets. But it’s not all bad news for cities. 

Remote meetings and ethics training

First, the good news. Cal Cities and other local government associations are co-sponsoring AB 817 (Pacheco), which would make it easier for people to serve on local advisory bodies, boards, and commissions. The narrowly tailored measure would allow members of local nondecision-making legislative bodies to participate in online public meetings without posting their location and without allowing the public into a private location — just like their state counterparts.

AB 817 would build on pandemic-era rules that helped boost accessibility and reduce ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. The bill includes a 2026 sunset date and requires an in-person location for public comment. It does not include an in-person quorum requirement for members, as this would place a disproportionate burden on the people the bill is trying to help.

Another measure, AB 2631 (Fong), would help keep a state-mandated ethics course online for local officials. Many local officials rely on this resource to meet their training requirements. However, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) may no longer be able to provide the program due to budget restraints. The bill — co-sponsored by Cal Cities, the FPPC, and others — would statutorily require the FPPC to continue providing this resource.

Vetoed measures rise back up

Now the bad news. Legislators have revived several vetoed measures opposed by Cal Cities. AB 2404 (Lee) would make sympathy striking and honoring the picket line a human right. This would allow nearly any city employee to strike regardless of their job duties and in doing so, undermine government services — especially in rural areas where services are co-located.

The measure is similar to last year’s AB 504 (Reyes), which Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed. Although this new bill contains helpful amendments from last year’s introduced bill, it goes well beyond what is allowed for primary strikes and risks the public’s health and safety.

Another measure, SB 1116 (Portantino), would allow striking workers to draw unemployment benefits after two weeks. This would create serious downward pressure on local and state budgets. The Governor echoed Cal Cities’ arguments last year when he vetoed SB 799 (Portantino, 2023) saying, “Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt.”

AB 2421 (Low) would restrict an employer’s ability to conduct internal investigations to the detriment of employees and the public. Among other things, the bill could limit investigations into workplace harassment, misconduct, and safety, silence witnesses, create one-sided protections for workers that go beyond attorney-client privilege, and impend public health responses. The measure also lacks guardrails to prevent potential conflicts of interest. 

When former Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar measure in 2013, he noted it would put a union agent on equal footing with one’s spouse, priest, doctor, or lawyer.

Other notable workplace bills

Top of mind for both employers and some lawmakers is employee burnout. But a bill introduced by Asm. Tina McKinnor focuses on the wrong factors.

AB 2561 would require local agencies to produce, implement, and publish plans to reduce union vacancy rates that exceed 10% for over six months. The bill notably omits state agencies, which have had a 10% vacancy rate for at least two decades. Although many specialized positions have high vacancy rates — such as behavioral health professionals and police — this is due to external factors, such as harassment or a shift to remote work.  

Cal Cities opposes the measure. Adding another mandate will not reduce staff vacancies. It may even lead to more burnout, as staff spend their time producing reports. Solving this problem requires investments from educational institutions, all levels of government, and the private sector.

What’s next?

Bills are now winding their way through policy committees and to appropriations. Legislators in both houses have until April 26 to get any bills with notable fiscal impacts through appropriations. Policy committee hearings are great opportunities for city officials to voice their support or opposition to a particular bill.

For more information about the biggest bill developments each week, check out Cal Cities’ recurring State Bills in Brief series.