In This Edition:

·        Impact of Cemex

·        Senate Leader Drinks Kool-Aid

·        Gallego Follows Patel’s Model

·        Hope for Diablo?

·        Trump PLA Policy Wins

·        Utah Water Emergency

·        No Chips for You!

Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC v. NLRB

The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC v. NLRB is a major development for WECA contractors in California because it left in place a new, more union-friendly framework for organizing workplaces. The court refused to weigh in on the new National Labor Relations Board’s “Cemex” standard, which allows a union to demand recognition based on signed authorization cards—without first going through a traditional secret-ballot election. If an employer refuses that demand, they must promptly petition for an election, but even minor unfair labor practice findings during that process can result in the Board ordering the employer to recognize and bargain with the union anyway.

For contractors, the practical effect is a much narrower margin for error during any organizing effort. Routine management communications, missteps by supervisors, or allegations of interference, whether intentional or not, can now carry far greater consequences. Under the Cemex framework, those issues can effectively bypass an election entirely and trigger mandatory union recognition. This raises the stakes significantly compared to the prior standard, where elections were the default mechanism and remedies for employer violations were less likely to result in automatic recognition.

In California, a state which is already a highly regulated and labor-friendly environment, the decision adds another layer of risk for open-shop contractors. Construction firms, which often rely on decentralized jobsite supervision and rapidly shifting crews, may be especially vulnerable to claims of unfair labor practices during organizing campaigns. The ruling underscores the need for heightened training, careful communication protocols, and early legal guidance whenever organizing activity is suspected.

In short, the Ninth Circuit’s failure to overturn the NLRB’s Cemex standard shifts the balance of power toward unions by making it easier to secure recognition and harder for employers to rely on elections as a safeguard. For WECA contractors, it means that preparation, compliance, and disciplined responses to organizing efforts are now more critical than ever.

The implications of the Cemex decision could be significantly amplified if Congress enacts the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) (H.R. 5408 / S. 844). As discussed, Cemex lowers the threshold for union recognition by allowing card-check demands to trigger either rapid elections or, in the event of alleged employer missteps, mandatory recognition. FLCA would pick up where Cemex leaves off—imposing strict timelines for first-contract negotiations and, if no agreement is reached, requiring binding arbitration to set the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

Together, these policies would create a compressed and high-risk pathway for non-union contractors: from organizing drive, to recognition, to a government-imposed contract in a matter of months. For contractors operating in California’s already labor-intensive regulatory environment, this combination would significantly reduce the ability to rely on traditional safeguards such as secret-ballot elections and extended good-faith bargaining. Instead, even minor alleged unfair labor practices could accelerate the process toward both union recognition and binding contract terms determined by a third party.

While FLCA faces meaningful legislative hurdles, particularly the 60-vote threshold in the U.S. Senate, it remains a live issue. A successful discharge petition in the House could force a floor vote, and bipartisan sponsorship suggests continued momentum. For open-shop contractors, the takeaway is clear: the evolving federal labor landscape is trending toward faster organizing timelines and reduced employer flexibility, making proactive compliance, supervisor training, and early-response strategies more important than ever.

—

SB 1256: Judicial Reform or Special Interest Bargaining Chip?

California has no shortage of obstacles to housing development. Between environmental review, local opposition, financing challenges, and litigation, even modest residential projects can spend years trapped in procedural limbo before a single foundation is poured. Senate Bill 1256 by State Senator Brian Jones was originally presented as an effort to address one narrow but increasingly common abuse of the development process: repetitive litigation.

The bill seeks to prevent plaintiffs from bringing a second lawsuit under the Subdivision Map Act after substantially similar claims have already been litigated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to the author, some opponents exhaust every CEQA claim against a housing project and then pivot to Map Act litigation to continue delaying or obstructing construction. SB 1256 attempts to establish that once those claims have been fully adjudicated, substantially similar challenges cannot simply be repackaged and relitigated under a different statute.

On its face, that is a legitimate public policy discussion. California’s courts are overloaded, housing projects routinely face years of delay, and duplicative litigation can become less about environmental protection and more about attrition. Reports surrounding the Harmony Grove Village South development in San Diego County, which is widely believed to be the catalyst for the bill, illustrate the frustration project applicants experience when litigation appears effectively endless.

Unfortunately, recent amendments to SB 1256 took the bill in an entirely different direction.

Rather than establishing a uniform legal standard applicable to all qualifying projects, the bill now conditions those litigation protections on the adoption of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). In other words, a developer may only receive protection from duplicative litigation if they agree to a union-only labor framework for the project.

That changes the bill from a judicial efficiency measure into something far more troubling: a legislative exchange in which access to legal certainty is conditioned on granting special-interest economic concessions.

There is simply no logical connection between repetitive litigation and mandatory PLAs. A project either deserves protection from duplicative lawsuits because repetitive litigation is abusive, or it does not. The legal principle should apply equally regardless of whether a project uses union labor, merit shop contractors, or a mix of both.

Instead, SB 1256 creates a two-tiered system. Developers willing to sign a PLA receive procedural advantages unavailable to developers who choose open competition. That should concern anyone who believes California’s laws should operate neutrally rather than reward politically favored labor structures.

That outcome directly conflicts with California’s stated goals of expanding housing production and increasing opportunities for small and emerging contractors. At a time when policymakers routinely discuss affordability, workforce shortages, and supplier diversity, SB 1256 runs counter to this by tying legal protections to exclusionary labor mandates.

Perhaps most concerning is the precedent this establishes. If the Legislature can condition protection from duplicative litigation on a PLA today, what comes next? Will expedited permitting, CEQA streamlining, tax incentives, financing assistance, or other legal protections similarly become contingent upon adopting favored labor agreements?

Judicial reforms should be based on sound legal principles, not leveraged as bargaining chips for special interests.

If duplicative CEQA and Map Act litigation is truly a statewide problem, then the solution should apply equally to all projects meeting the legal standard. California should not create a system where developers must effectively purchase access to legal certainty by surrendering control over workforce decisions.

WECA supports fair and open competition. We support efforts to reduce abusive litigation tactics that unnecessarily delay housing construction. But those reforms must apply uniformly, not only to projects willing to grant unions exclusive control over construction labor.

SB 1256 began as a discussion about judicial efficiency. It is rapidly becoming a case study in how even broadly supported reforms in Sacramento can be transformed into vehicles for expanding PLA mandates.

WECA members are encouraged to contact Jones and share their concerns.

·        Sacramento: (916) 651-4040

·        Escondido: (760) 796-4655

—

Ruben Gallego’s CODEL Antics Raise Eyebrows

(A CODEL is a COngressional DELegation, which is an official trip taken by Members of Congress to meet with leaders outside of Washington, both in the United States and abroad.) Multiple sources said that the Arizona Democrat’s behavior on a government trip to Colombia last summer raised concerns among U.S. officials. Embassy staff in Bogotá became aware of what they believed was a credible threat to his life and dispatched security personnel to meet Gallego and pick him up after dinner. After a discussion, Gallego decided to stay out, eventually walking to a nearby nightclub where he stayed until the wee hours.

At the club, Gallego and his chief of staff texted multiple embassy staff members, inviting them to join. At least one female embassy employee told her State Department colleagues about the outreach, Reese reports. It is unclear whether any staff took Gallego and his aide up on their offer, and there are no allegations that Gallego engaged in inappropriate behavior with any embassy staff member.

The next morning, Gallego did not show up for a scheduled bus that was set to take members of the traveling party to the airport for their return flight. The chief of staff had to get a copy of Gallego’s hotel key and get him from his room.

Gallego’s response: The senator “coordinated closely with embassy security throughout the trip, including on the evening in question, and followed all security guidance,” a spokesperson said. “While at dinner at the conclusion of a successful congressional delegation trip, the Senator and his Chief of Staff invited Embassy staff to join them, a common way to recognize the work of those who support these visits.”

—

Watt’s Next?

A coalition of business, labor, and energy groups announced the creation of Diablo Canyon 2045, an alliance of 25 organizations that hopes to push legislators to extend the Diablo Canyon Power Plant’s operations beyond its current 2030 limit to 2045. The announcement signals that Diablo Canyon supporters intend to pressure the California Legislature to pass a bill this year to extend operations. The coalition includes the Bay Area Council and a bevy of other regional business groups, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 1245, which represents workers at the plant, and pro-nuclear advocacy groups like Mothers for Nuclear and the Clean Air Task Force.

—

Court Affirms Biden-Era PLA Mandate

Former President Joe Biden’s project labor agreement mandate has won another battle, further cementing it as policy even after President Donald Trump’s administration took office.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to halt the PLA mandate, which impacts projects receiving $35 million or more in federal funding. Associated Builders and Contractors and its Florida First Coast chapter filed the appeal for an injunction.

In the decision, Chief Judge William Pryor said the appeal would likely fail because the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo confirming that the Biden-era order would remain in effect, even under the Trump administration.

ABC has long opposed the requirement of PLAs, saying the mandate unfairly locks out nonunion builders from winning federal contracts. In a statement shared with Construction Dive, ABC President and CEO Michael Bellaman said the group will continue to fight against the mandate.

“At no point, under any administration, have federal contractors ever been prevented from voluntarily entering into a PLA when such an agreement makes sense for their workforce,” Bellaman said. “Every qualified contractor should have the opportunity to build America.”

—

Cox Says Utah Drought Declaration is “Coming fairly soon.”

Utah’s water landscape doesn’t look good. After an abysmally low winter for snow, 100% of the state is already in drought. Plus, negotiations on the future of the Colorado River are still going nowhere. Gov. Spencer Cox thinks that grim reality could actually lead to more cooperation on the future of the Colorado River. One of the main sticking points is that nobody at the table could agree on what would happen in a worst-case scenario. Story

—

Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States

At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment (Damn! Another great HR idea squashed!), according to LexisNexis® data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban (HB 2303) this year that takes effect on June 11, and three other states considered bills dealing with worker microchipping. Story

In This Edition:

·        Union Mandates Disguised as Policy

·        Tax Subsidies for Some

·        Faster Labor Contracts Act

·        PLAs Claim Another Victim

·        Swalwell Impact

·        Walkaround Rule

·        IBEW joins Wildfire Victims First

·        Fire Reconstruction

·        Withdrawal Liability Industry Rules

·        Arizona Workplace Heat Rules

·        Retainage and Payment Practices

·        Arbitration Limits and PAGA

·        Can the AG Police an Elected Sheriff?

·        Team Building

·        How Long Does It Take to Buy Books for Children?

·        More DOL Drama

A Troubling Pattern, Union Mandates Disguised as Policy

A recent CalMatters article highlights a growing trend in Sacramento: conditioning basic business operations on union agreements. The legislation, SB 1203, would require private security firms to enter union contracts simply to provide required “use-of-force” training. In effect, the state is leveraging regulatory authority to compel unionization in an otherwise private industry. (CalMatters)

While framed as workforce training and public safety reform, the mechanism is unmistakable: no union agreement, no ability to operate fully. This is not an isolated policy experiment—it is part of a broader legislative pattern that should concern every open-shop contractor in California.

This same approach is now being applied to construction through measures such as AB 1809 (Fong), which would require school districts to adopt Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) as a condition for using Job Order Contracting (JOC). JOC has long been one of the most accessible procurement methods for small, emerging, and diverse contractors. Conditioning its use on a PLA effectively shuts the door on those firms unless they agree to union terms—terms many of their employees have not chosen.

AB 2152 (Gonzalez) takes this model even further. By tying judicial streamlining, a valuable tool to accelerate critical public safety projects like fire stations, to the adoption of a PLA, the Legislature is again using public policy as leverage. Contractors and public agencies face a coercive choice: accept a PLA or lose access to expedited approvals.

Across these proposals, the pattern is clear:

• SB 1203 (Security Guards): No union contract, no training authority.
• AB 1809 (School Construction): No PLA, no access to JOC.
• AB 2152 (Fire Stations): No PLA, no judicial streamlining.

Each bill conditions participation in the marketplace, or access to critical tools, on entering into union agreements. This is not about safety, training, or efficiency alone; it is about restructuring entire industries through indirect mandates.

For contractors, construction or security, particularly small, minority-owned, and merit shop firms, these policies create significant barriers:

• Reduced competition and fewer bidding opportunities
• Increased costs and administrative burdens
• Exclusion of skilled workers who have chosen not to affiliate with a union

For public agencies and taxpayers, the result is fewer bidders, higher costs, and less flexibility in delivering critical infrastructure.

Whether in private security or public construction, Sacramento is increasingly using regulatory “carrots and sticks” to compel unionization. The result is a steady erosion of fair and open competition.

WECA supports high standards for safety, training, and workforce development. But those goals can, and should, be achieved without excluding the majority of California’s construction workforce.

If these policies continue to expand, the question is no longer where this model will be applied next, but whether any sector will be left untouched.

—

Sacramento’s Selective Subsidies: Hollywood Gets the Red Carpet, Agriculture Gets the Cold Shoulder

California policymakers have made one thing abundantly clear: when it comes to subsidizing labor costs, it’s not the policy, it’s the politics.

For years, the state has generously supported the entertainment industry through expansive film and television tax credits. These subsidies, now totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually, are explicitly designed to offset production costs, particularly labor costs, to keep Hollywood rooted in California. Lawmakers and labor leaders alike defend these incentives as essential to preserving jobs and economic activity.

Yet when a similar concept is proposed for one of California’s oldest and most essential industries, agriculture, the reaction is dramatically different.

Senate Bill 921, authored by Senator Shannon Grove, seeks to address a very real and well-documented consequence of prior legislative action. When California phased in agricultural overtime requirements under AB 1066, the intent was to increase worker pay. The reality, however, has often been the opposite: growers reduced hours to control costs, and many farmworkers saw their take-home pay decline.

SB 921 attempts to correct that outcome. By offering a targeted tax credit to offset overtime costs, the bill would incentivize employers to restore hours and increase earnings for workers. It is, quite plainly, an effort to fix a problem created by the Legislature itself.

But unlike Hollywood, agriculture has not been welcomed with open arms.

The California Labor Federation has come out strongly against SB 921, arguing that it would “subsidize employers” and shift the cost of wages onto taxpayers. That argument might carry more weight if the state were not already doing precisely that for the entertainment industry.

The inconsistency is hard to ignore.

When the beneficiaries are film studios and unionized production crews, subsidies are framed as “economic development.” When the beneficiaries are farmers and farmworkers, many of whom are among the most economically vulnerable in the state, the same policy becomes an unacceptable “corporate giveaway.”

This is not just a contradiction; it is a policy double standard.

And the issue is not confined to agriculture.

California is increasingly experimenting with aggressive wage mandates across multiple sectors. The fast-food industry has already seen the implementation of a $20 minimum wage, with early reports indicating reduced hours and workforce adjustments. In Los Angeles, proposals are advancing that would push hotel and tourism wages toward, and in some cases beyond, $30 per hour.

The pattern is becoming familiar: mandate higher wages, then confront the unintended consequences as employers adapt by cutting hours, raising prices, or reducing hiring.

SB 921 represents a rare acknowledgment of those consequences and an attempt to mitigate them. Yet instead of engaging with the underlying problem, opponents have chosen to reject the solution outright.

California cannot continue to pick winners and losers based on political alignment or industry profile. If subsidizing labor costs is sound policy for Hollywood, it cannot be dismissed as irresponsible for agriculture. And if the state is unwilling to revisit the impacts of its own mandates, it risks compounding the very inequities it claims to address.

At a minimum, policymakers owe it to farmworkers and to the broader economy to apply their principles consistently.

Right now, Sacramento’s message is clear: red carpets for some, closed doors for others.

—

Josh Hawley is Still Trying to Sell Unions to Republicans. It’s Not Working.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a populist Republican who has rankled conservatives and union organizers alike with his picket-line visits and labor policies, aims to put forward a slew of legislation based on his self-proclaimed “pro-worker framework.” The framework includes increasing civil penalties for employers who violate labor laws and banning required “captive audience” meetings, where employers discourage workers from organizing.

Hawley has also introduced the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which requires employers to start negotiations for a first contract within 10 days of a union’s certification.

These policies are lifted from Democrats’ Protect the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, a comprehensive labor-reform bill that never came to a floor vote when Democrats controlled the Senate. Unions, from the Teamsters to the AFL-CIO to the United Food and Commercial Workers, say they are on board with the PRO Act and Hawley’s Faster Labor Contracts Act.

“There was just not a realistic path forward to the president’s desk for that bill as a whole,” said Sunshine McBride, the Teamsters’ federal legislative director, who added that the union worked with Hawley on turning the framework into legislation. “By doing the bills as standalones, we were creating more opportunities for Republicans to start to take those actions depending on where they fell on a continuum of support for labor.”

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) on Monday filed a discharge petition to force a vote on Hawley's bill. Teamsters leader Sean O’Brien joined Norcross and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) for a press conference on Monday ahead of the discharge petition, which the New Jersey lawmaker filed Monday night. The move comes after O’Brien met with White House officials last week.  Story

—

Sacramento’s I Street Bridge Bids Come in Millions Over Budget; PLA Victim?

Construction bids Sacramento received for the I Street Bridge replacement project were millions of dollars higher than anticipated, the city announced Wednesday. The existing bridge over the Sacramento River has connected Yolo and Sacramento counties for more than a century. Bid documents show that the city expected the cost to be $260 million, but the lowest bid received was for just under $399 million. The city still hopes to complete the project, but the timeline has been pushed back to at least 2027. It was previously expected to begin this summer. The city has a PLA in place, which undoubtedly contributed to the bids exceeding the engineer’s estimates. Story

—

Friend of a Predator

The fallout from Swalwell’s implosion hasn’t been confined to the house. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has been a longtime personal friend and political ally of Swalwell’s, and he came strongly to his defense when rumors about the congressman’s behavior started swirling.

Now the senator, too, has been forced into damage-control mode. In a press conference in his office, a harried Gallego disclaimed all knowledge of the predations of his, he insisted, former friend. “I let this man into my family,” Gallego said. “Look, we socialized. We went out. But I never saw him engage in any of the predatory behavior, harassment, sexual assault, anything like that.”

“I definitely look at the world a different way now,” Gallego added, pledging to “take, you know, personal steps and office steps to make sure that we don’t even get close to a gray line.”

—

Cal/OSHA’s Proposed Walkaround Rule

Cal/OSHA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would significantly expand the scope of individuals who may accompany agency inspectors during workplace walkaround inspections. The proposed regulation, 8 CCR § 331.8, would, among other things, allow third parties such as union organizers, attorneys, and outside consultants to accompany Cal/OSHA compliance officers during inspections of non-union workplaces, so long as the inspector finds “good cause” for their participation.

Most opponents of the rule criticized Cal/OSHA for advancing this proposal while a federal court decision on the legality of Fed/OSHA’s similar Walkaround Rule could come at any time.

Key Themes in Comments

• The proposed rule opens the door for union organizers, plaintiff’s attorneys, and other third parties to access non-union workplaces under the guise of assisting with safety inspections, creating significant risks of workplace disruption, litigation exposure, and trade secret compromise.
• Cal/OSHA is rushing this rulemaking without justification, particularly given the pending federal court challenge to Fed/OSHA’s analogous rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several trade groups have filed suit in the Western District of Texas, and a decision on summary judgment could arrive any day.
• The coalition urged Cal/OSHA to convene an advisory committee process before sending any proposal to the Cal/OSHA Standards Board. An advisory committee would allow for more meaningful stakeholder engagement, including the opportunity to review and comment on draft regulatory text; a step that has been absent from this process so far.

If Cal/OSHA will take up our recommendation to slow the process and convene an advisory committee. Regardless, we will continue to monitor the rulemaking and look for every opportunity to engage, both informally with the agency and formally through the Cal/OSHA Standards Board process that would follow if Cal/OSHA proceeds.

—

#WCGW

Housing construction groups like the state building industry, apartment associations, and the IBEW are banding together in a new coalition pressing state lawmakers to urgently adopt changes to the state’s electric and insurance systems. They argue that it would improve California's recovery from catastrophic wildfires. Major utilities, including PG&E, are part of the effort, too, said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for the group.

The coalition group, called “Wildfire Victims First,” seized on the California Earthquake Authority’s big disaster resilience report to press the Legislature to act “with urgency” on “comprehensive reforms” in a joint statement.

The group is staying away, for now, from embracing specific policies, like getting rid of inverse condemnation, the state’s legal doctrine automatically holding electric utilities liable for damages from wildfires they spark, according to a spokesperson.

But its broad focus includes ensuring faster payouts for victims and criticizing hedge funds and trial attorneys for taking a cut of victims' payouts. That position puts the group sharply at odds with those who seek compensation directly from utilities for wildfires they spark, including trial attorneys who represent wildfire victims and the property insurance industry. [Politico]

—

Big Talk, Little Build

Soon after wildfires leveled two Los Angeles communities last year, public officials touted the record-setting speed of the recovery. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said it was happening “faster than ever before.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass boasted it was “on track to be the fastest in California history.”

That’s no longer true, according to an analysis of permitting data.

The analysis found just 34 homes have been built in Pacific Palisades and Altadena in the 15 months since the blazes, a figure that trails the rate of construction following two recent, similarly destructive fires in Northern California.

The review also determined that owners of fewer than half of the 9,900 lots where homes were destroyed have applied for permits to build new houses.

The data show that what residents and policymakers alike have increasingly feared is the case: Los Angeles is falling short of early expectations for rapid rebuilding, as frustrated wildfire survivors continue to confront barriers to returning home. [Politico]

—

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Withdrawal Liability Industry Rules

The Ninth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over these 9 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and includes Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), recently issued a pair of decisions clarifying how the rules governing withdrawal liability apply to employers in certain industries.  In Walker Specialty Const., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Joint Pension Tr. for S. Nev., No. 24-1560, 2026 WL 21743 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026), the Court held that an employer did not withdraw from a multiemployer pension plan, and thus did not owe withdrawal liability, because the employer’s asbestos abatement work qualified for the “building and construction industry” exemption.  And in Nevada Resort Ass’n–Int’l All. of Theatrical Stage Emps. & Moving Picture Mach. Operators of the U.S. and Can., Local 720 Pension Tr. v. JB Viva Vegas, LP, Nos. In 24-3047 & 24-2791, 2026 WL 32577 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026), the Court held that the plan primarily covered employees in the entertainment industry because the majority of employees performed at least some entertainment-related work. More

—

Industrial Commission Approves Arizona Workplace Heat Rules Supported by Businesses

The Industrial Commission of Arizona voted recently to adopt strengthened workplace heat safety guidelines for employers statewide, delivering an outcome the business community called a practical, Arizona-driven solution to a genuine challenge. The commission’s action follows nearly a year of work by the Governor’s Workplace Heat Safety Task Force, which brought together business, labor, and occupational safety experts to develop guidance grounded in real-world conditions. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Arizona Manufacturers Council participated throughout that process, with Grace Appelbe representing both organizations. More

—

New California Statutes Reshape Retainage and Payment Practices in Private Construction Contracts

Effective January 1, 2026, two groundbreaking California statutes will significantly impact private construction contracts executed after this date. The first, California Civil Code § 8811, imposes a strict five percent (5%) cap on retainage for most private projects, fundamentally changing the longstanding practice of parties negotiating retainage terms and percentages. The second, California Civil Code § 8850, introduces an elaborate prompt payment and claim resolution framework for private works, aimed at alleviating payment delays and providing clear procedures for the resolution of construction contract disputes. Together, these statutes are poised to enhance payment transparency, limit tactical withholding of funds, and encourage prompt, fair compensation for contractors and subcontractors, while also creating new compliance obligations and potential penalties for owners. Construction industry participants should familiarize themselves with these changes to ensure contractual practices align with the new statutory requirements and to mitigate risks associated with noncompliance. Story

—

Arbitration Limits and PAGA Maneuvering

Employers in California continue to face rough waters when it comes to enforcing arbitration agreements. Through the lens of some recent California cases, employers may want to consider at each stage, from the roll-out of the arbitration agreements to after arbitration is initiated. Story

—

Ballot Seizure Case Poses a Major Legal Question: Can the AG Police an Elected Sheriff?

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s unprecedented seizure of more than 650,000 ballots as part of an investigation into dubious election fraud claims has drawn widespread public attention, welcomed by the Republican gubernatorial hopeful, and condemnation from Democrats and election law experts.

But as California’s highest court weighs the merits of Bianco’s investigation, it will also be taking a stand on a much bigger political and legal question: does the state’s elected attorney general ultimately have authority over local sheriffs, who are themselves independently elected?

Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, contends California law makes him the state’s chief law officer, with the power to override decisions by local sheriffs. Bianco argues the attorney general’s authority is not absolute, and points to the fact that a Superior Court judge in his county approved a criminal search warrant for seizure and examination of the ballots.

—

Team Building

There's a corporate team-building exercise where you have to climb on the boss.

Companies are always looking for fresh ways to foster team spirit by swapping traditional icebreakers for activities like country music songwriting. But even in this era of blurring professional boundaries, what's happening in the Spanish region of Catalonia is extreme. Employers are ditching escape rooms in favor of human tower workshops. Catalans have been erecting human towers-castells, to celebrate local festivities since the 18th century. While the activity sounds like a gross breach of corporate etiquette, feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

Story

—

Quiz: How Long Does It Take to Buy Books For Children?

Four years ago, California set aside $70 million to provide more books to children, and so far zero books have been distributed, reports CalMatters' Adam Echelman.

In 2022, lawmakers allocated funds to the California State Library so it could partner with Dolly Parton's Imagination Library to provide kids with books. The state library then created a separate nonprofit, the Strong Reader Partnership, which spent $1.1 million in state funding to pay a consultant, financial services companies, and marketing firms. But as of 2025, the organization had not distributed a single book.

Then, in 2024, when the project first came under scrutiny because most of the program's money sat idle for nearly two years, the Legislature passed a law rerouting 90% of the money earmarked in 2022 to go directly to the Tennessee-based Dollywood Foundation, instead of the Strong Reader Partnership or another California nonprofit.

At a Senate hearing last week, top officials from the Strong Reader Partnership argued that the program failed because lawmakers pulled funding prematurely. They also said the nonprofit fulfilled its duty to fundraise and secure participation from local organizations, not to deliver books.

But Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez remained skeptical. The Pasadena Democrat said the state plans to audit the program. Story

—

More DOL Drama

The escalating standoff between two of Donald Trump's appointees is roiling the Labor Department and could force the White House to fill another Cabinet vacancy. Inspector General Anthony D’Esposito is nearing the end of an internal probe into Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer over alleged misconduct, including misuse of government resources and workplace behavior. The Labor secretary has denied wrongdoing. (Update: LC-D is headed to a great new private sector job, I am betting at a union)

The investigation has already led to multiple resignations and drawn in dozens of staff interviews and outside records. The clash has created tensions inside the department and raised political stakes for the administration, which is juggling other vacancies and midterm pressures.

Questions have also emerged about D’Esposito’s independence as a Trump appointee. The probe’s outcome could determine whether Chavez-DeRemer remains in her post or exits under pressure. DOL spokesperson Courtney Parella declined to comment on the investigation, but she said the agency “continues to deliver on the President’s agenda and advance major results for American workers. Any suggestion that the Department’s work has been slowed or distracted is not accurate,” Parella said in a statement. [Politico]