In This Edition:

·        Action Alert: AB 2152 – Don't Make Fire Stations More Expensive

·        Prop 37

·        Changes Coming to the ECU

—

Action Alert: AB 2152 – Don't Make Fire Stations More Expensive

As this newsletter is being published, AB 2152 (Gonzalez) is awaiting action in the Senate Appropriations Committee. If the bill is released from the Suspense File, it will move to the Senate Floor and, because of recent amendments, will also return to the Assembly for concurrence before heading to the Governor for his ‘consideration.’

WECA supports building more fire stations and getting them built faster. Unfortunately, AB 2152 takes a worthwhile idea—expedited judicial review for critical public safety projects—and conditions it on an unrelated labor mandate that will increase costs and reduce competition.

The bill now defines an "essential local fire station project" as the planning, design, property acquisition, construction, or replacement of a fire station by a city, county, or local fire agency. To qualify for expedited judicial review under CEQA, however, the project proponent must:

• Pay approximately $180,000 to the Judicial Council to cover the costs of expedited review; and
• Build the project under a Project Labor Agreement (PLA).

That is an expensive admission ticket.

The average three-bay fire station in California costs $8 million to $12 million to construct, while larger stations can exceed $25 million. Independent research by the RAND Corporation found that projects constructed under Project Labor Agreements can experience construction cost premiums of approximately 15 to 18 percent.

For a typical $10 million fire station, that means a local agency could pay an additional $1.5 million to $1.8 million in construction costs—before paying the bill's $180,000 judicial review fee.

Those costs are not theoretical.

On Sacramento's Fire Station 14 project, five contractors attended the pre-bid conference, but only one submitted a bid—approximately 33 percent above the engineer's estimate. City staff confirmed that several contractors declined to bid because of the PLA requirement.

Similarly, the Cosumnes Community Services District's Fire Station 77 experienced a failed competitive procurement, was ultimately awarded without a traditional bid process, opened approximately one year late, and cost roughly $700,000 more than the engineer's estimate.

Ironically, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee's own analysis concluded that, according to CEQAnet, the overwhelming majority of fire station projects already qualify for CEQA exemptions or proceed under Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations. Only a small number require Environmental Impact Reports, and fewer still are challenged in court.

In other words, AB 2152 asks local governments to pay millions of dollars more for an expedited judicial process that most fire station projects will never need.

California already requires prevailing wages and apprenticeship utilization on public works projects. Local agencies already have the authority to use Project Labor Agreements whenever they believe they are appropriate. They do not need Sacramento conditioning CEQA benefits on one particular labor policy.

The Legislature should be asking one simple question:

If expedited judicial review is good public policy, why should cities, counties, and fire agencies have to buy it by agreeing to a Project Labor Agreement?

Take Action Today

WECA members are encouraged to contact their State Senator immediately.

Ask your Senator to:

Vote NO on AB 2152 unless it is amended to remove the mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirement.

A simple phone call is often the most effective. Here's a script you can use:

"Hello, my name is ________, and I'm a constituent and a member of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. I'm calling to ask Senator ________ to oppose AB 2152 unless the Project Labor Agreement mandate is removed. California already requires prevailing wages and apprenticeship on public works. AB 2152 would force local governments to pay higher construction costs and a $180,000 judicial fee just to qualify for CEQA streamlining. That means fewer fire stations will be built with taxpayer dollars. Please ask the Senator to vote NO unless the PLA requirement is removed, and please inform me how they voted. Thank you." (Not sure what your Senator’s phone number is? Check here and call either the district office or the Capitol.)

With the bill also returning to the Assembly for a concurrence vote if it passes the Senate, every call matters. The issue isn't whether Project Labor Agreements should be available—they already are. The issue is whether access to CEQA streamlining should be conditioned on adopting one particular labor policy.

WECA believes California should make it easier—not more expensive—to build the fire stations our communities need.

—

Proposition 37: No PLA Mandate, but Several Labor Requirements

California Proposition 37 would create a bond-funded second-mortgage program for eligible buyers of newly constructed homes. Although the measure does not contain a blanket project labor agreement mandate, contractors should be aware of several labor provisions embedded in its “qualified builder option.”

Participation in that option is voluntary. Homes do not have to be constructed under the option to qualify for Proposition 37 financing. Builders that opt in receive different—and generally more flexible—construction-defect procedures in exchange for accepting additional labor standards and enforcement obligations.

The measure incorporates selected provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. For buildings over 85 feet, those provisions trigger labor standards found in Government Code Section 65913.4, including prevailing wage, contractor registration and payroll-reporting requirements. Depending on project size, they can also require participation in an approved apprenticeship program, specified healthcare expenditures, monthly compliance reporting and use of a skilled and trained workforce.

Certain projects of 50 or more units in San Francisco would be subject to additional prevailing-wage and related labor standards.

A PLA is mentioned only through these incorporated statutes. In those provisions, a qualifying PLA can substitute for certain payroll, enforcement, or skilled-workforce procedures. It is therefore an optional compliance mechanism—not a requirement to sign a PLA.

Proposition 37 also gives joint labor-management cooperation committees substantial enforcement authority. They may bring actions relating to wage statements, unemployment-insurance obligations, workers’ compensation coverage, contractor licensing and certain other violations. Opting-in builders may be held liable for specified violations committed by their contractors and subcontractors.

One noteworthy limitation is that Proposition 37 does not incorporate Section 21080.66(d)(1), which imposes prevailing wage on projects consisting entirely of lower-income housing. Instead, it selectively incorporates paragraphs (2), applicable portions of (3), and paragraphs (4) and (5).

The bottom line for merit shop contractors: Proposition 37 does not mandate a PLA or union labor. Nevertheless, builders choosing the qualified builder option—and contractors working for them—could face significant prevailing-wage, apprenticeship, healthcare, skilled-workforce, reporting and labor-enforcement requirements depending on the project’s height, size and location.

This article provides a general summary and is not legal advice. Contractors should review the final measure and applicable statutes with counsel when evaluating a particular project.

—

What Goes Around Comes Around: WECA Supports Moving Electrician Certification to CSLB

The August 3 amendments to Assemblymember Laurie Davies’ AB 1707 would make a significant—and welcome—change to California’s Electrician Certification Program.

Contingent upon a legislative appropriation, AB 1707 would transfer responsibility for administering electrician certification and electrician-trainee registration from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), within the Department of Industrial Relations, to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB).

WECA supports the transfer.

The change would place certification administration within the agency that licenses C-10 electrical contractors and already plays a central role in enforcing electrician-certification requirements against those contractors. Bringing these closely related responsibilities together offers an opportunity to improve coordination, accountability, customer service, examination administration, recordkeeping, and enforcement.

The transfer will require careful planning and adequate resources. Preliminary estimates indicate that CSLB could incur one-time transition expenses and ongoing costs exceeding $3 million annually for staffing, examination administration, legal support, information technology, and related program activities. AB 1707 appropriately makes implementation contingent upon a legislative appropriation and provides a substantial transition period. Under the amended bill, the transfer would become operative on the later of July 1, 2028, or the first anniversary of the appropriation.

That schedule should give CSLB, DLSE, lawmakers, and the regulated community time to develop a thoughtful transition plan that protects applicants, certified electricians, trainees, contractors, and approved education providers from disruptions.

An Idea Whose Time Has Finally Come?

For longtime WECA members, the proposal may sound familiar.

Approximately 15 years ago, WECA sponsored legislation that would have transferred the Electrician Certification Program from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards to CSLB. At the time, both the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and CSLB opposed the proposal—but for very different reasons.

The IBEW opposed the move, apparently because the proposal had not originated with the union. CSLB’s objection was more institutional: the board maintained that its responsibility was to regulate contractors, not the workers employed by those contractors.

Both organizations apparently have changed their minds.

There is a certain irony in seeing essentially the same concept return years later with broader institutional acceptance. But good public policy should not be rejected simply because it took the state 15 years to warm up to the idea—or because the idea originally came from WECA.

In fact, events during the intervening years have strengthened the case for the transfer. CSLB already enforces the certification law against C-10 contractors. A C-10 contractor that willfully employs uncertified electricians or fails to provide required supervision may face CSLB disciplinary action. Moving certification administration to CSLB would therefore align the agency maintaining certification and trainee records more closely with the agency responsible for contractor compliance.

Details Still Matter

WECA’s support does not mean the transfer should occur without industry participation and legislative oversight. The transition must be adequately funded, and CSLB must establish systems capable of handling applications, renewals, examinations, trainee registrations, disciplinary matters, and public certification records without interruption.

Contractors, electricians, apprenticeship programs, trainee schools, and other affected parties must also have a meaningful role in implementation. Particular attention should be paid to:

• Timely processing of applications and renewals.
• Reliable transfer of existing certification and trainee records.
• Adequate examination availability throughout California.
• Clear treatment of pending applications during the transition.
• Accessible online services.
• Coordination with apprenticeship and education programs.
• Transparent fees and program expenditures.
• Consistent enforcement and due-process protections.

If properly implemented, transferring the program to CSLB can create a more coordinated and responsive regulatory structure for California’s electrical industry.

WECA thanks Assemblymember Davies for advancing this proposal and will work with the Legislature, CSLB, DLSE, and industry stakeholders to help ensure a successful transition.

Sometimes Sacramento needs a decade or two to recognize a good idea. WECA is pleased to see this one return.

—

Social Security Will Be Depleted by 2032

The Social Security Trustees’ annual report on the program’s outlook shows that the largest component of the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Social Security’s primary trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2032, at which point, benefits for every recipient will be automatically cut by 22 percent, unless reform is enacted. In fact, the depletion date has moved so close that Senators elected in this year’s election will be serving in office when Social Security becomes unable to pay out full benefits.

Here are the key takeaways from today’s report.

In This Edition:

·        Honest Graft

·        What Goes Around

·        OSHA Retreats?

·        Union QPQ?

·        Friends in High Places

·        Housing Costs

·        EEOC RIP?

·        Wage & Hour Space

·        Beskatta Inte Rikedom Som Vi Gjorde!

·        Mileage Rate Increase

—

I Seen My Opportunities and I Took 'Em

Reports allege that a longtime White House teleprompter aide used advance knowledge of presidential speeches to place bets on Kalshi prediction markets, reportedly turning a tidy profit before the activity was detected. The employee has since been placed on unpaid administrative leave while the matter is investigated.

Frankly, I would have expected a commendation.

After all, the alleged strategy sounds remarkably similar to the philosophy of George Washington Plunkitt, the legendary New York political boss who proudly distinguished "honest graft" from dishonest graft. As Plunkitt famously put it, "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em." He argued there was nothing wrong with profiting from information available through one's position—so long as you didn't steal it.

Of course, modern ethics rules, securities laws, and prediction markets tend to see things differently. Markets only work when participants compete on equal footing. If someone has access to information the rest of the market doesn't have, confidence in the system quickly evaporates.

Plunkitt might recognize the opportunity. Today's regulators are more likely to recognize the investigation.

—

Congressman Jimmy Gomez Faces Heat—And Contractors Haven't Forgotten

Los Angeles Congressman Jimmy Gomez suddenly finds himself on the defensive. According to Politico, Gomez is facing a well-funded primary challenge from the left, criticism over his positions on Israel, and reports that the House Ethics Committee is investigating allegations of sexual misconduct that he denies. While Gomez acknowledges "personal mistakes outside my marriage," he insists he violated neither House rules nor the law.

Those controversies will be sorted out by voters and the Ethics Committee.

What California contractors shouldn't forget is Gomez's own legislative record. Before heading to Congress, Assemblymember Gomez authored AB 1431 (2015), the bill that transformed Job Order Contracting by requiring school districts and community college districts using JOC to operate under Project Labor Agreements. That PLA mandate is exactly the language Assemblymember Mike Fong now seeks to preserve and extend through AB 1809.

I met with Gomez while AB 1431 was moving through the Legislature to explain how the PLA mandate would shut many merit shop contractors out of JOC work. His response was memorable, not because he engaged on the merits, but because he dismissed them. Smiling, he said he expected to lose the occasional Republican vote and advised me to "save my breath."

Eleven years later, we're still fighting the same battle. AB 1809 would continue the very mandate Gomez put into law in 2015, denying school districts the freedom to decide for themselves whether a PLA makes sense. Contractors may not have changed Congressman Gomez's mind then, but they shouldn't forget who wrote the mandate in the first place.

—

As Federal OSHA Pulls Back, States Diverge on Workplace Safety Rules

• With federal OSHA expected to remain largely inactive on new rulemaking, states are splitting into different directions on workplace safety — some tightening rules on heat, ergonomics, and workplace violence, while others move to roll back protections that exceeded federal minimums, creating a compliance patchwork for multi-state employers.
• Attorney Samuel H. Pond notes that “state control” doesn’t necessarily mean stricter enforcement — California, Oregon, and Washington run some of the most active state programs, while Kentucky’s HB 398, passed in March 2025, bars its state plan from enforcing any safety standard stricter than OSHA’s federal floor.
• Pond argues that when injury prevention weakens at the regulatory level, the workers’ compensation system absorbs the fallout through more claims, higher premiums, and increased litigation, and advises facilities managers to build safety programs to the strictest standard they operate under rather than the federal minimum, since OSHA violations can still fuel negligence claims and raise insurance costs even though federal fines themselves remain relatively modest.

READ MORE

—

CV Mayor Accuses Union of Quid-Pro-Quo Offer

Chula Vista Mayor John McCann recently accused a prominent San Diego County labor union of trying to strong-arm him into supporting a controversial ballot measure by promising not to fund his opponent in this year’s mayoral race in exchange for his support.

McCann said a representative of Local 89 of the Laborers International Union of North America made the offer during a recent meeting to discuss a charter reform measure the union has been seeking to place before Chula Vista voters in November.

The measure, which would give city councilmembers a large pay raise and make other significant changes to city government, has faced strong opposition from residents.

“I was informed if I supported placing the ballot measure on the ballot, they would not fund my opponent in the election,” McCann said from the dais during debate over the measure at Tuesday’s Chula Vista City Council meeting.

“He was trying to make a deal with me,” McCann said of Kelvin Barrios, LIUNA’s director of government affairs, who met with the mayor last month to discuss the ballot measure. “I feel it was unethical,” McCann said. “I don’t believe in a quid pro quo.”

Barrios emphatically denied McCann’s accusation and said, in fact, it was McCann who “wanted assurance we wouldn’t spend money against him in the general election. I said I can’t make those assurances,” Barrios said. “In no way was I trying to tie consideration of [the ballot measure] to political spending… This is the mayor making a false accusation.

After hearing from more than 45 public speakers, almost all of them opposed to the ballot measure, the City Council voted 4-1 to pull the measure from the November ballot and refer it to the city’s Charter Review Commission for further consideration and public input. [VOSD]

—

AZ Representative Defends Tate Bros

Accused sex traffickers Andrew and Tristan Tate were arrested by U.S. marshals in Miami last weekend, as they were set to host a bare-knuckle boxing match. First-term Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) (Maricopa County) has become one of the Tate Brothers’ most prominent defenders in the aftermath of the extradition, claiming in a tweet that they’re victims of politicized “lawfare” in both the U.K. and Romania. He doesn’t specify why he thinks the brothers would be targets of lawfare—what political reasons these countries would have for taking down the Tates. Nevertheless, Hamadeh said the Trump administration should refuse to extradite the brothers, who are dual American and British citizens.

“There should be no extradition of American citizens when the charges are unclear and political,” he continued. “The US government should either charge them with a crime or protect them from reckless court proceedings in the UK and Romania,” Hamadeh wrote.

Hamadeh is an attorney, U.S. Army intelligence officer, and former prosecutor currently serving as the U.S representative for Arizona's 8th congressional district since 2025. A member of the Republican Party, he is the first Arab American elected to Congress from Arizona.

—

By the Numbers

From the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s latest housing affordability tracker:

·        $775,000: average cost of a mid-tier home in California — twice as much as the U.S. as a whole

·        2020-2022: the period of rapid growth of home prices. During this time, bottom-tier home prices increased by 15% every year, compared to 6% per year on average for the two decades prior.

·        44%: the percentage of California households that have incomes high enough to qualify for a mortgage now, down from 57% in 2019.

·        75%: the percentage of California homeowners that have mortgage interest rates below 5%, which makes selling their home and buying a new one with a mortgage at current rates significantly more expensive.

—

EEOC Proposes to Rescind All EEO Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

On July 21, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to approve a proposed rule which would rescind a series of agency demographic reporting requirements, most notably the EEO-1 Form, which private employers of 100 or more employees have been required to file for decades. The agency also proposed to repeal similar requirements for unions (the EEO-3 report), state and local governments (EEO-4), public-school systems (EEO-5), and institutions of higher education (EEO-6) (collectively, the “EEO Reports”). Finally, EEOC has proposed rescinding the related recordkeeping and record preservation requirements supporting these reports. The proposal is expected to be published in the Federal Register shortly, starting a 30-day public comment period. After that, EEOC will review and consider the comments submitted and adopt a final rule.

Read More

—

What’s Happening in the Wage & Hour Space That Should Command Your Attention?

A lot is happening in the wage and hour space. In the Pacific Northwest, there’s been intense activity from California plaintiffs’ firms filing wage and-hour class actions. In fact, Washington State is viewed as the next high-exposure target for meal and rest break claims. But that’s not limited to Washington State. Beyond Washington, approximately 20 states have adopted meal or rest break requirements, and the patchwork of inconsistent state laws keeps getting more complex - with Minnesota creating new requirements and penalties just this year. So, employers now need more than just a California supplement to their national wage and hour compliance strategy. Today, they need intentional, state-by-state review and analysis. And that’s not all.

Read More

—

Sweden’s Warning to California: Don’t Tax Wealth Like We Did

California has often looked to Scandinavia — in particular, Sweden — as a model for combining prosperity with ambitious social support. As a Swede who has spent much of my career studying taxation, entrepreneurship, and business ownership, I understand why. Sweden has a large welfare state, high taxes, and strong public institutions. But Sweden also has a warning for California: Not every tax that sounds fair ends up strengthening society. The wealth tax is the clearest example.

California voters will be asked in November to approve a one-off 5% tax on residents with net worth of more than $1 billion. The purpose is understandable: fund healthcare, education, and other public priorities. The appeal is equally obvious. Why not ask the very richest residents to contribute more?

Story

—

California Employers Take Note of the Recent IRS Mileage Rate Increase

California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for necessary expenses incurred in performing their job duties, which may include an employee’s use of their personal vehicle for work purposes, such as for work-related travel or driving between work sites.

When determining how to reimburse an employee for use of their personal vehicle, employers may select between different methods for reimbursement, including actual expense, mileage reimbursement, or a stipend.

The California Labor Commissioner has opined that the use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) mileage rate will generally satisfy an employer’s obligation to reimburse employees for the expenses incurred in the use of an employee’s car for work purposes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

More