Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Executive Order N-6-26, establishing a structured state framework to analyze and prepare for the economic effects of artificial intelligence (AI) automation on workers and businesses. California houses 33 of the world’s top private AI companies, making it a central hub for the technology's development. As AI tools increasingly integrate into everyday business operations, state policymakers are focusing on how this shift impacts the broader labor market.

The executive order does not create immediate mandates for private employers, but it directs state agencies to study the technology and recommend future policy changes. Under the order's timeline, the state plans to launch a public dashboard by August 2026 to track AI-related job shifts using unemployment data. By November 2026, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency is tasked with proposing updates to California's mass layoff laws, specifically the WARN Act, to account for workforce reductions triggered by technological displacement.

State agencies are also instructed to research various economic models and retraining strategies to manage this transition. This includes exploring options for mandatory severance standards, and developing an "AI Playbook" to help the Employment Development Department modernize its job-training programs. The order also calls for a review of how unionized workplaces handle AI integration through collective bargaining agreements.
​
Lauren Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here.

On June 9, 2026, the Faster Labor Contracts Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote. The bill secured majority support from 210 democrats and 20 republicans. It now heads to the U.S. Senate, where it already enjoys notable bipartisan backing, including a companion bill sponsored by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO).

The bill is designed to prevent employers from dragging out or stalling negotiations when workers form a new union. Existing law requires employers to negotiate with unions in “good faith”, but it lacks an official deadline for a deal to be reached. Supporters of the bill pointed to data showing that unions and employers takes around 400 days on average to reach their first collective bargaining agreement. To eliminate these prolonged delays, the bill establishes a strict, mandatory timeline that forces both sides into mediation and arbitration if talks stall.

Under the bill, employers must begin negotiating within 10 days of receiving a written request from a new union. If a deal isn’t agreed upon within 90 days of starting talks, either side may request mediation through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for a 30-day mediation window. If mediation fails after the 30-day period, the FMCS would refer the dispute to a three-person arbitration panel. The panel is comprised of one representative chosen by the workers, one representative chosen by the employer, and one neutral third party. These three members will write the collective bargaining agreement terms, which would impose a legally binding two-year deal.
​
Lauren Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here.

Three major federal employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), have filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleging that a new question on federal job applications creates an impermissible “political loyalty test.” At issue is a prompt now included in many job postings that asks candidates how they would “help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities” to identify specific initiatives they would support.

According to the unions, this requirement converts a traditionally merit-based civil service system into an unconstitutional political vetting process. Their complaint alleges that compelling applicants to explain their support for presidential policies infringes on First Amendment rights and chills political expression. The unions also cite data showing the essay prompt has appeared in over 5,800 postings, spanning from policy roles to maintenance and clerical positions.

The OPM has defended the prompts as a lawful method to evaluate applicants’ skills and commitment to public service. Director Scott Kupor maintains that responses to the essay are optional and that hiring decisions “cannot consider political or ideological beliefs.” Still, the unions assert that internal guidance effectively makes the question mandatory and that political appointees may review the answers. The lawsuit will likely require the court to determine whether federal hiring standards may include political loyalty tests.

​For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe you may have been discriminated against in the hiring process, click here to get in touch with our office.

California lawmakers have advanced a bill that would allow the state to protect labor relations and unionization efforts traditionally handled by the federal government. The bill comes amid a crisis at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was left nonfunctional earlier this year. In February 2025, President Donald Trump dismissed a member of the NLRB, leaving the five-member Board without a quorum necessary to conduct business. With the board left paralyzed, the NLRB’s backlog of unaddressed cases continues to grow. States are now beginning to look at alternative ways to protect labor rights.

California Assembly Bill 288 is intended to circumvent the NLRB by significantly expanding the powers of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB currently handles only public sector labor disputes. The proposed law would grant PERB authority to hear labor matters affecting private-sector workers if a case brought to the NLRB does not receive a response in six months. Once signed into law, AB 288 allows workers to petition PERB to rule on unfair labor practices, certify a union, order employers to bargain, and impose civil penalties. The law does not create new rights. Instead, it creates a parallel enforcement process in the absence of an NLRB quorum.

The bill was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk and is awaiting his signature. Union sponsors of the bill are urging Governor Newsom to sign it into law. "Under AB 288, when the NLRB is unable or unwilling to act, the state will step in to enforce the law and ensure that workers who want a union actually get a union," said Lorena Gonzalez, President of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO.
​
Lauren Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about a labor matter, click here.

Several cities spanning southern California have enacted minimum wage increases effective July 1, 2025. While the state’s minimum wage is set at $16.50, many local jurisdictions have enacted higher minimum wages in response to the increased cost of living in the state. According to the Living Wage Calculator from MIT, an individual would need to earn at least $27.81 an hour working full-time to cover basic necessities while living in Los Angeles County by themselves. On July 1, 2025, the minimum wage rate per hour for the city of Los Angeles will be set at just $17.87. 

The City of Los Angeles has also implemented industry-specific minimum wage increases. On May 27, 2025, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed an ordinance dubbed the Olympic Wage. The ordinance establishes a $22.50 minimum wage increase for airport and hotel workers effective July 1, 2025, and sets a path for a $30 minimum wage by the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The ordinance encountered pushback from business groups. A coalition of airline, hotel, and concession companies are circulating a petition to force a citywide vote on the ordinance. They argue that the increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses in the tourism industry who will be forced to lay off workers. To successfully force a citywide referendum, the petition needs about 93,000 signatures within 30 days to be placed on the ballot in an upcoming election.

Some labor unions have launched a “Defend the Wage LA” campaign to defend the ordinance. UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing hotel and restaurant workers, lobbied for the passage of the minimum wage ordinance. Their represented workers rallied on June 4, 2025, at Los Angeles City Hall to oppose the referendum and urging voters to not sign the petition. The union issued a news release stating:

“Rather than paying workers what they deserve, the industry which has already spent over 1 million dollars to stop their workers from earning a livable wage, is expected to spend millions more on this referendum”
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

Several unions are suing to stop President Trump’s attempt to end labor unions at federal agencies. On March 27, 2025, Trump signed an executive order stripping union protections in 18 agencies. The executive order relies on a federal civil service law that gives the president authority to prohibit unionization at national security agencies.
​
President Trump has relied on a national security justification to enact other keys parts of his agenda from accelerating deportations to mass layoffs of federal employees.  Several unions are challenging Trump’s actions. On March 31, 2025, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed a lawsuit arguing Trump’s true goal is to radically reduce the size of the federal government and  remove “disloyal” civil servants. On April 4, 2025, several unions led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a similar lawsuit. The AFGE, representing 820,000 federal employees, alleges the government violated the First Amendment by retaliating against workers who have expressed opposition to Trump.

The unions support their claims by pointing to the White House’s fact sheet released alongside Trump’s executive order, which openly states that “[c]ertain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda.” Trump frequently clashes with agency heads he nominated in his first Presidency – a mistake he does not want to repeat. Fealty to Trump has effectively become a prerequisite to working in the White House, endangering civil servant protections and free speech.

The civil servant system which governs the hiring and firing of hundreds of thousands of federal workers is meant to be non-partisan. Government employees can be removed from their jobs only for cause and must be notified in advance with the opportunity to respond and appeal. The NTEU and AFGE lawsuits are test cases for whether Trump will be permitted to skirt these requirements. 

California’s new state law banning “captive audience” meetings took effect on January 1, 2025. Senate Bill 399 (S.B. 399) prevents California employers from forcing employees to attend meetings or listen to communications about the employer’s religious, political, or union views. The bill was sponsored by the Teamsters Union and authored by State Senator Aisha Wahab (Dem. - Sen. Dist. 10). Supporters of the law argue that it promotes fairness and equity. They reason that employers hold a disproportionate amount of power over their employees and should not be able to force their workers to attend political meetings with no relevance to their jobs. Employees effectively become a “captive audience,” fearful of retaliation and subject to coercion.

Opponents of the law, primarily business and commerce groups, have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 399. They argue that it infringes on an employer’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. They claim that the ban discriminates against the employer’s viewpoint and chills their speech on political subjects. In response, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) released a legal memorandum defending the constitutionality of the ban. The AFL-CIO argues that the law constitutionally restricts an employer’s conduct – not speech – especially when aimed at a nonconsenting audience.

The legal future of S.B. 399 remains unclear. California’s state law mirrors similar laws enacted by states across the nation that have also faced legal challenges with mixed results. Further complicating matters, the Trump administration recently fired the chair of the NLRB rendering the Board without a quorum or the ability to issue new decisions. Trump is likely appoint a full slate of Republican Board members friendly to management and willing to overturn employee-friendly NLRB precedent prohibiting captive audience meetings. Simultaneously, on February 16, 2025, Trump’s appointee for the NLRB General Counsel, William B. Cowen, released a memorandum (GC 25-05) outlining the labor policy initiatives for Trump’s second term. Among the rollback of Biden-era practices, Cowen has rescinded guidance on the NLRB’s prior position supporting the ban on captive audience meetings. 
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

On April 2, Teukolsky Law filed a class action lawsuit against Hotel Figueroa, alleging the hotel and its operators violated Los Angeles’s Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance when they failed to protect workers’ jobs after the hotel’s food and beverage operator, Noble 33, abruptly laid off all of its employees in February 2024.

The Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance was enacted to protect hotel workers affected by mass layoffs, which frequently occur when corporate ownership or management of a hotel changes. When employees are laid off following such a change, the Ordinance requires hotels and their operators to retain employees for a brief transitional period to ensure employment stabilization and reduce demands on social services.

In the case of Hotel Figueroa, more than 100 workers lost their jobs after Noble 33 decided to cease operations at the hotel days after the staff notified management of their intent to unionize. Noble 33 was quickly replaced by a new operator, The Botanical Group, but the lawsuit alleges that none of its former non-management staff were retained, including Maria Ibarra, a former cook for Noble 33.

Hotel Figueroa operates out of one of downtown Los Angeles’s most famous buildings, a 14 floor Spanish Mediterranean property that also houses upscale restaurants such as Café Fig and La Casita. The dispute at the hotel may be indicative of a broader Southern California trend of food workers standing up to their employers and alleging labor and employment law violations.
​
For UNITE HERE Local 11’s press release on Ms. Ibarra’s lawsuit, click here. For more on Ms. Teukolsky  and her practice, click here. 

We’re halfway through 2023, and so far it’s lived up to experts’ predictions of being one of the most active years for labor strikes in recent memory. Below is a round-up of some of this year’s most significant strikes and strike authorizations.

LAUSD Teachers’ Strike
In late March, workers for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the nation’s second largest public school system, embarked on a three-day strike hoping to secure pay increases as the cost of living in Southern California rapidly outpaced their wages.

The worker’s efforts were ultimately successful. In April, LAUSD ratified a contract negotiated with the teachers’ union, UTLA, that raises teachers’ pay by 21% over the course of three years, bringing the average LAUSD teacher salary to $106,000 by 2025. The agreement also included salary increases for LAUSD’s nurses, mental health workers, and special education teachers, along with promises to reduce class sizes. More than 94% of the 27,171 ballots cast by UTLA members were in favor of the new contract.

Hollywood Writers’ Strike
On May 2, the membership of the Writers’ Guild of America (WGA), a union representing approximately 11,500 Hollywood writers, went on strike. Hollywood writers are fighting against numerous trends in the entertainment industry that have caused their pay and job security to decline significantly over the past decade while industry profits have ballooned, particularly for the likes of streaming companies such as Netflix, which reported a $5.6 billion operating profit for 2022.

The writer’s strike is still ongoing with no end in sight. Highly anticipated TV projects such as “Stranger Things” and a “Game of Thrones” spinoff have been delayed and other major series are expected to be postponed. Beyond the changes Americans may see on their television screens, the strike also figures to have significant consequences for the economy at-large. The last writers’ strike in 2008 cost the California economy $2.1 billion as writers and countless other workers that support the entertainment industry– designers, electricians, grips, and restaurant workers – felt the crunch of the work stoppage.

UNITE HERE Local 11 Strike Authorization
On June 9, members of UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing service and hospitality workers across the American Southwest, overwhelmingly voted to authorize a strike. The union could now call for 15,000 of its members across dozens of Southern California hotels to strike. Doing so would amount to the largest industry wide strike in U.S. history.

The top priority for the hotel workers is securing higher wages to combat the persistent rising cost of living in Southern California. Even though Hotel profits in Los Angeles and Orange County now exceed their pre-pandemic levels, the workers that form the backbone of their operations still struggle to make ends meet.

 A strike may take place as early as July 4th weekend.
​
Teukolsky Law commends workers for the gains they’ve made this year and recognizes them for the courage it takes to put themselves on the picket line. 

Last week, UNITE HERE Local 11, a union that represents service and hospitality workers across the American Southwest, asked 15,000 of its southern California members to vote on a strike authorization. Workers overwhelmingly voted to authorize the strike, with 96% of Local 11 members voting in favor. The strike authorization is a significant step towards convincing the region’s hotel operators to consider pay increases for their workers, many of which struggle to make ends meet.

Local 11’s move comes less than a month before 62 of its contracts with Southern California hotels are set to expire. For months, the union and hotels have attempted to negotiate new agreements but have failed to reach a consensus on Local 11’s proposals, including pay increases for its members and other provisions meant to address employees’ healthcare, pensions, work eligibility, and issues related to understaffing.

As California has emerged from the pandemic, the hospitality and tourism industries have roared back, with visitor spending expected to set new records in 2023. However, the workers that form the backbone of the two industries have largely not reaped the rewards of rebound. Rent hikes and increased living costs continue to force many hotel workers out of their homes while their employers fail to address persistently low wages.
​
Teukolsky Law stands in solidarity with Southern California’s hotel workers and commends the work Local 11 is doing to ensure workers are fairly compensated and protected heading into the summer.