A new labor law in California, effective today, aims to safeguard the rights of private-sector employees to unionize and secure improved working conditions, but it faces significant legal opposition from federal authorities. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor of Inglewood, empowers the California Public Employment Relations Board to oversee activities traditionally under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This move comes as the federal board has been unable to function properly due to the lack of a quorum, rendering it unable to carry out its duties since earlier this year.
The NLRB’s stalemate follows President Donald Trump’s firing of the board’s chairperson, Gwynne Wilcox, immediately after the commencement of his second term in January. With two nominees still pending confirmation, the board has been unable to meet the required quorum to make decisions that affect workers nationwide. In response, California’s lawmakers have stepped in to ensure labor and unionization rights for workers are maintained, defying decades of federal oversight and limitations.
McKinnor expressed her commitment to ensuring workers’ rights are protected in the face of federal inaction. “California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize due to employer intransigence or federal inaction,” McKinnor said when the bill was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September. Despite her optimism, federal authorities argue that the new law violates constitutional principles.
The NLRB filed a lawsuit against California in October, contending that the state is interfering in areas strictly reserved for federal governance. This legal challenge raises the question of whether state governments can enforce provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, originally passed by Congress in 1935. Labor experts remain skeptical about the chances of such state-led initiatives succeeding in court, given precedents that reaffirm federal primacy in labor regulations.
John Logan, professor and chair of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University, noted that similar laws passed in other states, including New York, are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny due to the preemption principle. “It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where the courts do not overturn these state laws,” Logan stated, referencing rulings that consistently uphold federal authority in labor matters.
William Gould, former chair of the NLRB during President Bill Clinton’s administration, echoed these concerns. He emphasized that while the California legislature’s intentions are commendable, labor-related authority and enforcement remain firmly situated at the federal level, even amid current dysfunction.
As the legal battle unfolds, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office has assumed responsibility for defending the state’s law in court. However, his office has refrained from commenting publicly on the case. California remains committed to addressing worker rights issues, even as the state faces challenges from federal authorities and the courts.
Meanwhile, Amazon warehouse workers in the Bayview District of San Francisco have been striking alongside labor organizers with the Teamsters Union to push for a union contract, reflecting ongoing tensions in workplaces as workers demand stronger protections and collective bargaining rights. These protests, tied to broader labor movements, underscore the urgent need for a resolution to the impasse between state initiatives and federal oversight as labor issues continue to dominate headlines across the country.
