Lea esta historia en Español

Those who physically attack doctors, nurses and other emergency department workers in California face harsher penalties in 2025 thanks to a new law.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 977, which increased penalties from six months to a year in jail for those convicted of assaulting California’s hospital emergency room workers.

The bill’s author was Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez, who spent 30 years as an emergency medical technician in the San Gabriel Valley. 

Rodriguez, a Democrat whose term ended in 2024, said he was compelled to introduce the legislation after seeing too many of his friends and former colleagues attacked on the job. He felt that there needed to be tougher penalties to discourage future attacks. 

As he made his case to lawmakers this year, he testified that his daughter, Desirae, a respiratory technician, was recently assaulted on the job. Other health care workers testified that they too had been attacked. 

Recent polling shows they’re hardly alone. A poll from the American College of Emergency Physicians found that more than 90% of ER doctors said they’d been attacked within the last year.

Though the bill ended up passing overwhelmingly, some progressive Democrats either voted against or didn’t vote for the proposal which counts the same as a “no” vote. They, along with prison reform advocates and the California Public Defenders Association, argued that increasing penalties doesn’t deter crime and that many of those assaulting ER workers are mentally ill. They noted that laws on the books already prohibited assault.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who faced a U.S. Supreme Court order to shrink the state’s prison population, had vetoed an identical bill from Rodriguez in 2015.

The California Medical Association, the lobbying group for California’s physicians, was glad Newsom didn’t do the same.

“Thank you Governor Newsom, Assemblymember Rodriguez, and the Legislature for having the backs of health care workers across the state,” the association’s president, Dr. Tanya Spirtos, said in a statement after Newsom signed the bill.

If you feel like so much happened in 2024 that it could fill several years, you’re not alone.

Throughout the year, CalMatters covered the many big stories in California, and our photojournalists, illustrators and contributors documented them — often through the faces of those most directly affected.  

There were concerns about health care, including abortion access, maternity ward closures and affordability. Artificial intelligence took center stage, along with debates about data privacy. The homelessness crisis — and the billions spent to address it — continued to grab the attention of the public and politicians. Protests over the Gaza war again embroiled college campuses, as they tried to balance public safety and free speech. Nature also made news, with an atmospheric river in November and a tsunami scare in December.

And yes, we had an election. The presidential race became far more California-focused than expected when President Joe Biden dropped out and anointed Vice President Kamala Harris — a Californian who had been the state’s attorney general and represented it in the U.S. Senate. Harris drew a lot of enthusiasm and carried California by 20%, but lost vote share compared to Biden in every California county except Inyo — and lost the national vote and Electoral College to Donald Trump.

As you look back on 2024, here’s a selection of some of the year’s most compelling images:

Lea esta historia en Español

California saw its biggest increase in registered lobbyists last session since at least 2011, when a change in the law caused the number to more than double. 

There was a roughly 10% increase in the number of lobbyists who registered for the 2023-24 session compared to the previous one — for a record of 3,245 people, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

What’s behind the jump? Longtime lobbyist Chris Micheli sees it as the result of high turnover in the Legislature — leading to an “exodus of legislative staff” who went into advocacy. 

In what was dubbed the Great Resignation of 2022, for example, 26 members opted out of seeking re-election, in addition to the seven who reached term limits. 

Micheli said he has also seen a rise in state agency rule-making, which motivates those in support of or against regulations to lobby: “Some of these regulatory bodies, like the Air Resources Board — the number of regulations that they’re undertaking and their significance has been growing in recent years.” 

Meanwhile, the number of legislative staff has shifted only slightly since the mid-1990s, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. The staff count can impact how much time members have to write and research legislation. The increase in lobbyists means there’s now at least one lobbyist for every staff member, compared to two staffers per lobbyist back in 1995, the earliest data available from the Secretary of State’s office. 

“The fact that the number of registered lobbyists has risen so high and outstrips the number of actual staffers that legislators have to help them with people’s work shows how skewed our system has become towards the interests of wealthy interests that also dominate campaign spending, rather than regular people,” emailed Trent Lange, executive director of California Clean Money Campaign — an advocacy group that aims to combat the influence of money on politics. 

Lobbyists are required to register with the Secretary of State’s office, and report on their activities each quarter. That’s according to the state’s Political Reform Act, which passed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in 1974 in an effort to combat political corruption. 

The law defines lobbyists as those who are paid to influence legislation or regulation through direct communication with lawmakers, outside of public comments. They can be hired as contractors by companies, or work to influence policy as an employee, although those who spend less than one-third of their time lobbying don’t have to register.

Lawmakers and those who work for state agencies legally must wait one year after leaving state jobs before working as lobbyists. Legislative staff do not have that requirement.

The recent jump in new lobbyists was the highest since 2011, when a law signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger went into effect requiring placement agents — financial officers who solicit investments from the state workers’ and teachers’ retirement funds — to register as lobbyists. The law nearly doubled the number of registered lobbyists, from 1,237 for the two-year session ending in 2010 to 2,353 in 2012.

The second highest bump came in the session that ended in 2020, with 257 more registered lobbyists compared to the session before, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

The rise in the number of lobbyists coincides with an uptick in money spent on lobbying, with industry and advocacy groups spending record amounts each year since 2022.

Spending to lobby California legislators hit nearly $420 million in just the first nine months of 2024, compared to $484 million in all of 2023 and $443 million in the entirety of 2022. Included in the recent boost: a summer lobbying blitz by Google to influence whether it would have to pay news outlets for publishing their content. 

Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of the good governmental advocacy group California Common Cause, labeled it “absolutely wild” that nearly $1 billion was spent on lobbying last session. “Sometimes people in the capitol community,” he said, “lose sight of how staggering it would be to their constituents if they knew how much money is spent to, in many cases, divert policy decisions away from the reason everyone originally went to Sacramento, which is to serve the public interest without fear or favor.”

Jeremia Kimelman contributed to this story.

Cannabis cafes and expanded outdoor drinking? An end to a banking fee? More protections for your credit score if you face medical debt? These are among the roughly 1,000 new laws hitting California starting the first day of 2025.

If that sounds like a lot, it could have been much more: California lawmakers introduced nearly 5,000 bills in the most recent legislative session ending this fall, a two-year period that saw nearly half die without a single vote.

In all, lawmakers passed about 1,200 bills in 2024 and Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed 200 of those. And that’s the bureaucratic funnel in a nutshell. 

Most of these incoming laws are technical, fix previous laws or are narrow in scope. But there are some that affect lots of Californians, or are just plain interesting. 

There are the consumer finance protection laws, numerous education-related laws — including one to expand alcohol education that was written by a former lawmaker arrested for a DUI — as well as a law banning local voter ID rules and another granting a few more days to fight an eviction. Paris Hilton makes a cameo, too.

CalMatters reporters describe some of the noteworthy laws taking effect Jan. 1. Dive in to stay informed about the changes that matter to you — and keep coming back as we add more stories about new laws before 2024 rides off into the California sunset.

As President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign imploded this summer, Gov. Gavin Newsom was at the center of the furor.

He became arguably the most prominent and forceful surrogate for Biden through the chaos that followed the president’s debate debacle in June, championing Biden in interviews and on the campaign trail as fellow Democrats increasingly questioned whether the president was still up to the job. 

Newsom’s role as head cheerleader raised his own political capital in the process, thrusting him into the top tier of prospects bandied about as a possible replacement nominee, even though Newsom publicly denies any presidential aspirations.

That opportunity eventually went to Vice President Kamala Harris, after Biden finally dropped out of the race in late July and endorsed her. But her November loss to President-elect Donald Trump has surfaced questions anew about what might await Newsom when he terms out of the California governorship in two years — just in time to potentially run for the White House in 2028.

He won’t be ceding the national spotlight that he grabbed this summer any time soon. Just days after Trump’s victory, Newsom was already positioning California as the leader of the resistance to a second Trump administration, calling a special legislative session to seek funding for expected litigation against the federal government.

Could returning to the role of resister-in-chief boost Newsom’s appeal to the loyal Democrats, even beyond California’s borders, who will decide the next presidential primary? Or would another California liberal just be seen as too risky?

In the meantime, Newsom still has a state to manage.

It was a tough year for the governor, who had to negotiate a state budget closing an estimated deficit of tens of billions of dollars. His political capital took a bruising when California voters barely adopted his plan to overhaul how the state cares for people with serious mental illness, a major policy priority, and then again when he unsuccessfully maneuvered to remove a tough-on-crime measure from the November ballot, which ultimately passed overwhelmingly.

Newsom got a boost by leaning into his ongoing feud with the oil industry over gasoline prices. Despite facing some resistance from lawmakers and skepticism over the effectiveness of his proposal, Newsom pushed a bill through the Legislature this fall to smooth out seasonal price spikes by increasing state oversight of refinery maintenance. He celebrated with a rare public signing ceremony in the rotunda of the state Capitol.

2025 outlook

Those headwinds are not going away next year. State fiscal officials project California is entering a period of growing budget deficits, imperiling Newsom’s ambitions for big, expensive new programs to reboot the state’s sluggish economy and fight back against a second Trump administration. After a disappointing election for Democrats in which voters broadly swung to the right, California’s legislative leaders are also urging a renewed focus on lowering the cost of living in the state. If he finds there is a diminished appetite for anti-Trump resistance the second time around, Newsom will need to decide whether he keeps playing to a national audience or turns his attention more fully to the problems of California.

Against the backdrop of the election, the Legislature’s year was marked by debates over retail theft policies, an 11th-hour special session called by the governor, and a dramatic shelving of two reparations bills. 

On the final night of the session, Aug. 31, Gov. Gavin Newsom called a special session so the Legislature could pass bills intended to lower gas prices for Californians by requiring oil companies to increase their reserves. It was, at that point, the second special session in as many years, and prompted rare resistance from Senate Pro Tem President Mike McGuire, not because of policy differences, but because McGuire didn’t think it was necessary.

That wasn’t the only showdown between the Legislature and the governor this year. After some lawmakers initially resisted Newsom’s push to place a crime measure on the ballot, the branches came together to pass a slate of retail theft bills.

The Legislature also passed 12 bills borne out of the state’s reparations task force, including a formal apology for California’s role in the perpetuation of slavery. But in the final week, the Assembly failed to take up two bills, to the frustration of supporters, aimed at eventually disbursing direct cash payments to descendants of people enslaved in the United States. 

While lawmakers were, in theory, constrained by the second year of a budget deficit, they still managed to pass some key legislation, including a contentious bill preventing school boards from adopting policies to inform parents if students use a name or pronoun that does not align with their biological sex. The Legislature also passed bills regulating artificial intelligence, allowing tribes to sue private gambling halls and banning legacy admission at universities. 

The 2024 year was the first full year presided over by new Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Democrat from Salinas, and McGuire, a Democrat from Santa Rosa.. 

The Legislature and governor largely saw eye-to-eye on bills: Lawmakers sent 1,206 bills to Newsom, of which he vetoed 189 — on par with the state averages over the last decade.

2025 outlook

Legislative leaders in December limited the number of bills members could introduce from 50 in the Assembly to 35, and from 40 to 35 in the Senate. The new class of legislators represents the most women ever elected; for the first time, half the state senate will be women, finally reflecting the state’s population. The Republican Caucus also grew more diverse. 

After Donald Trump won the presidential election, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the third special session of the last two years to pass bills that allocate funding for the state’s Department of Justice to sue the Trump administration as needed. A fresh Trump administration will be round two of a showdown between California lawmakers and the federal government over its potential policies on environment, immigration and reproductive rights.

To understand what happened with the state budget in 2024, you have to go back to 2023. 

That year Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats who control the Legislature decided against raiding the state’s roughly $37 billion rainy-day fund despite a shaky fiscal picture. Those dollars came in handy as lawmakers grappled to plug an estimated $56 billion shortfall this year and next.

That the state had a major deficit is partly the fault of flying fiscally blind. In response to devastating storms, federal and state tax collectors extended filing deadlines last year well past the date lawmakers normally finalize the state budget. As a result, the revenue picture was incomplete. Basically, the state spending plan last year assumed more revenue than what ultimately flowed in, all because key data wasn’t available in time. 

What are these deficit numbers in context? The state’s general fund budget — spending on schools, health care, prisons, green energy initiatives and more — from July 1 to next June is $298 billion, among the highest ever.. As recently as 2021, the state was spending $270 billion. 

How’d lawmakers close this year’s budget chasm? For starters, they pulled $12 billion from the state’s reserves for the next two years. Lawmakers also cut most state agency allocations by almost 8%, eliminated thousands of vacant government jobs and got rid of a handful mid-sized spending programs — savings of $16 billion. Gone was a plan to have the state lend colleges money to build more student housing, $1.1 billion in affordable housing and about $500 million for a new program that would have paid college students to work in jobs tied to their majors. 

Other savings came from freezing business tax credits. Then there’s the budget “fund shifts” lawmakers apply to the numbers that move money around to notch savings. 

Among the few state programs that actually saw their budget grow? Public colleges and universities, though the University of California and California State University are slated to see those 8% cuts next year, unless the state budget picture improves.

2025 outlook

Revenues so far are higher than what was anticipated — thanks to big gains in the stock market, particularly in tech, and the income tax those investors pay. But the Legislature’s independent budget analysts say all that extra revenue doesn’t mean there’s room to spend more, in part because they’re projecting multi-billion dollar deficits through 2028-29. Plus, so much of what California spends money on now is expected to get more expensive.

Ultimately how much the state decides to spend on its vast array of programs — we’re not the fifth largest GDP in the world for nothing —  depends considerably on the stock market and the incomes of California’s richest residents. Capital gains taxes from a hot Wall Street means big bucks for the state’s programs. 

A Republican-led White House and Congress with an eye toward tax cuts might spur stocks to soar (though tax cuts often mean federal program cuts). But President-elect Donald Trump’s plan for heavy tariffs and mass deportations of undocumented workers could crimp the economy because of higher inflation and worker shortages.

Lea esta historia en Español

‘Everyday people across the country skip medical care because of cost. Those who do seek medical help may end up with a balance they can’t pay off. That debt can hurt people’s credit scores, resulting in long-term financial burdens.

Starting Jan. 1, a new state law will prohibit health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debt information to credit agencies. That means unpaid medical bills should no longer show up on people’s credit reports, which consumer advocacy groups say is a boon for patients with debt.

Here’s why: While the law will not forgive someone’s debt, by keeping it off credit reports, it might provide some reassurance that a hospital stay or trip to urgent care won’t later affect their credit standing. Lower credit scores usually result in higher interest rates and make it harder for people to qualify for a home rental, a car loan or even employment.

During legislative hearings, the law’s author, Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, contended that because people don’t choose to have a medical emergency or illness, this type of debt should not count against them. Supporters also argued that medical debt is more prone to inaccuracies because of billing mistakes by health providers and insurers.

The main three credit bureaus – TransUnion, Equifax and Experian — stopped reporting medical debt under $500 in 2023. But most people with medical debt owe far more than that. The national average for medical balance is $3,100, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In California, an estimated 38% of residents carry some type of medical debt; that figure climbs to more than half for low-income residents, according to the California Health Care Foundation. 

One key caveat is that patients can only take advantage of this law if the debt is owed directly to a medical provider or collection agency, but not when the debt is charged on a medical credit card or a general credit card. 

This new law follows similar ones enacted in a handful of other states, including New York and Colorado. It also mirrors a proposal put forth by the Biden administration to do the same nationwide. However, with a new administration taking over in January, it is unclear whether the federal proposal will go anywhere. 

Limón’s office explained that under the law patients have the right to sue a debt collector or provider who reports a medical debt to a credit bureau. Consumers may also choose to file a complaint with the state’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which has authority over debt collectors. Consumers can also file a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office. 

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

Lea esta historia en Español

Californians who try to withdraw money but don’t have enough in their bank accounts won’t fall deeper into a financial hole from having to pay a fine, thanks to a new state law.

The law covers instances in which banks charge customers when their withdrawals are declined instantaneously, such as at ATMs, because of insufficient funds. It takes effect Jan. 1.

Assembly Bill 2017 applies to banks and credit unions that are regulated by the state; Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it in September. The bill was backed by several consumer advocacy groups, including the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and East Bay Community Law Center, which called penalties for insufficient funds “junk fees” and said getting rid of them will protect financially vulnerable consumers. 

Tim Grayson, the bill’s author, said when he introduced it in May that it would “help prevent fee creep in the banking industry.” Grayson, a Democrat from Concord, is an incoming senator who was in the Assembly through the end of the 2024 legislative session.

The Consumer Federation of America, a sponsor of the bill, said common charges for insufficient funds are $30 or more.

The California Credit Union League, which at first opposed the bill and said credit unions “do not charge these types of fees,” eventually took a neutral position. But the state Department of Financial Protection & Innovation has found that many credit unions do have income from insufficient-fund charges; a 2022 state law tasked the agency with collecting data from banks and credit unions about their fees.

The law by Grayson is similar to a rule by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau — the federal watchdog agency that’s in President-elect Donald Trump’s crosshairs — that applies to federally chartered banks. 

In line with the growing nationwide push to eliminate junk fees, Newsom also signed another bill addressing overdraft fees: Senate Bill 1075 will limit credit-union fees for insufficient funds to $14 unless a lower federal limit is set. That becomes law in 2026. And he signed Assembly Bill 2863, which will make it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions and requires companies to get consent from their customers before charging them to renew or when a free trial ends. It goes into effect July 1.

Striking Amazon and Starbucks workers are on picket lines instead of delivering last-minute presents or handing customers Christmas-themed drinks, as their unions pressure the companies during the holidays — and before a less union-friendly president is sworn into office. 

The workers accuse their employers of refusing to recognize their unions or to bargain in good faith. They have been organizing for more than four years but have yet to land a contract. Some have filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging union-busting behavior by the companies, including coercion, threats, discipline and firings. Amazon and Starbucks have also filed complaints against the unions, accusing them of coercion, violence and illegal strikes.

Soon, the board will likely be less sympathetic to unions after the Senate earlier this month failed to extend the term of then-Chairperson Lauren McFerran. The five-member board had three Democratic members including McFerran. President-elect Donald Trump will have the chance to appoint two more Republicans.

“The Trump NLRB the first time around was the most right-wing, anti-labor NLRB in the entire nearly 90-year history of the board,” said William Gould, a former chairperson of the National Labor Relations Board during President Bill Clinton’s administration and a professor emeritus at Stanford University. 

Gould said he doesn’t remember “any board so eager and activist to reverse what had gone on before.” Because of that, he expects that “most of what the Biden board has done will be overturned by the Trump board,” he said. 

Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, did not respond to specific questions about the board. In an email, she instead described the president-elect as a champion of workers, writing, “The working men and women of America have been left behind, which is why President Trump and Republicans saw historic support from working class voters. President Trump will keep his promise to the hardworking men and women of America by bringing jobs back home, restoring American manufacturing, slashing inflation, and cutting taxes.” 

An analysis of Trump’s policies by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found his proposed tax cuts would disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, while his planned tariffs would fall hardest on the middle and working class. 

Labor leaders said a reversal of Biden-era labor board decisions does not bode well for their unionizing efforts — many of them in, or started in, California — though they added that they do not expect workers and unions to quit trying. 

California unions are preparing to ask state legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom to toughen up the state’s own policies as “insurance” against potentially weaker federal rules. The California Labor Federation plans to revive a long-shot bill Newsom vetoed last year that would have allowed workers to receive unemployment benefits if they strike. They also will push state lawmakers to protect private-sector unionization, in the event that right is eroded in federal law.

“We want to make sure we can preserve what we have,” said Labor Federation leader Lorena Gonzalez. 

Under the Biden administration, the NLRB’s director has taken more aggressive action to enforce laws that require employers to bargain in good faith and prohibit retaliation, and taken a series of legal positions favorable to organizing workers. 

They include what John Logan, professor and chairperson of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University, said was “the most important action” of the board in the Biden years: a 2023 decision that established a new standard on when employers must bargain with unions without a representation election. If a majority of employees vote to unionize, employers must recognize and bargain with the union, or else seek an election within 14 days. If employers engage in unfair labor practices during the process, the board could order them to bargain with the union.

He expects the board to reverse that ruling under Trump.

Issues at Amazon 

Already, companies have been resisting that decision. 

Amazon workers are striking in part to try to force the company to bargain with some of its subcontracted workers. They cite a Los Angeles regional NLRB director’s August 2024 finding that the e-commerce giant was a “joint employer” of a group of delivery drivers, who work for a nationwide network of contractors the company calls “delivery service partners.” That means the finding holds Amazon legally responsible for the wages, working conditions and treatment of the subcontracted workers. If the determination withstands lengthy legal challenges, that could open the door for the workers to bargain directly with Amazon. 

The regional director’s finding stemmed from a group of Palmdale drivers who worked for the contractor Battle-Tested Strategies and who became the first Amazon delivery drivers in the country to unionize in April 2023. Amazon ended its contract with Battle Tested — retaliation, the  Teamsters claimed, for the union drive. Amazon denied that, saying it cut the contract over “repeated” breaches by the delivery company, and the regional director dismissed the retaliation claim.

But the regulator said both Amazon and Battle Tested failed to negotiate with the drivers’ union on working conditions, including the effects of the contract termination on the drivers’ jobs. In September, the agency filed a complaint before the labor board trying to force Amazon to bargain; the larger company in turn sued the NLRB director and the board in federal court, seeking to halt any order to bargain and arguing the board itself is unconstitutional.

Whether larger companies should be considered employers of the workers of their contractors is an unsettled area of federal labor law that has been repeatedly reversed by different labor relations boards since the Obama administration. It’s another instance in which the current board made it easier to unionize workers but a new board under Trump could very well reverse the decision. 

Amazon warehouse worker Leah Pensler, 26, helped organize her coworkers at a delivery facility in San Francisco. Pensler, who walked the picket line Thursday, told CalMatters that since more than 100 workers at the facility signed union cards and joined the Teamsters in October, the company has denied they formed a union.

Pensler also said “Amazon has worked hard to scare workers by (saying) that with union representation, people may not receive the same working conditions and pay we currently have.” The labor board’s regulators made similar charges in its complaint against Amazon in the Palmdale case. 

Eileen Hards, a spokesperson for Amazon, said “the Teamsters promise a lot of things that they can’t guarantee.”

Hards also called the strikes by the Teamsters illegal. For one thing, she said, Amazon does not consider the delivery drivers on strike to be its employees. And she said the San Francisco facility did not hold a vote, and that “in order to be recognized they have to file with the NLRB,” which those workers did not. 

But Emily Orlach, a spokesperson for the Teamsters, said that under the new standard established in 2023, Amazon is legally required to negotiate with the workers. 

Also, Amazon, SpaceX and a few other major corporations that have been accused by the labor board of violating workplace rights have in recent years argued before the federal courts that the board itself is unconstitutional. 

The Amazon strike is ongoing. 

Issues at Starbucks

Starbucks Workers United member baristas at several stores in different states walked off the job beginning Friday. The union says the strikes are now in 13 states and will spread to more than 300 stores Tuesday, continuing through Christmas Eve.

JJ Dizon, a barista in Yuba City, said during a virtual announcement Thursday that she was proud of the progress the union has made in bargaining with Starbucks — that the union was in “the home stretch” of months of negotiations for a contract on behalf of 537 union stores and more than 10,000 workers. The company employed about 211,000 workers in the United States as of September, according to its latest annual financial report. 

But other workers who spoke on the call said the company’s new chief executive, Brian Niccol, took the reins in September and “started to chill bargaining.” They characterized Starbucks’ proposed 2% raises as “insulting.”

“The labor movement has reached a tipping point while the CEOs remain in their towers,” Dizon said. 

Starbucks spokesperson Phil Gee said in an emailed statement ahead of the strike announcement that it was “disappointing” that the union was thinking of striking, considering that the two sides had “reached 30 meaningful agreements on dozens of topics Workers United delegates told us were important to them, including many economic issues.”

“If the delegates want to serve the partners they represent, they need to continue the work of negotiating an agreement,” Gee said.

Logan, the SF State professor, said that for both the Starbucks and Amazon workers, “this might be their last, best chance to pressure the companies in public before Trump comes into office.” 

Brandon Dawkins is an officer with Service Employees International Union Local 1021, which has been organizing Starbucks stores in Northern California, 22 of which have voted to unionize so far. Fifty-three stores in the state have taken union-authorization votes since 2022, 37 of which have voted to unionize. He said Starbucks workers have lived through a previous Trump NLRB before, but acknowledged there could be more changes this time around.

“We have to continue to organize no matter what,” Dawkins said. 

The future of organizing

Among the other things Gould, the former labor board chairperson, said the Trump board will likely reverse is the 2021 decision requiring colleges to treat graduate students as employees, which gives them the right to bargain collectively. 

“That won’t eliminate collective bargaining at the universities,” he said. “But it will be a signal to universities to exploit any advantage they have, and to weaken unions that are already there.”

Gonzalez of the California Labor Federation said she doesn’t expect a tougher legal landscape to stem a rising tide of union activity. 

She said the current labor board’s rulings have been “nice to have,” but even under a more worker-friendly administration, it’s been hard for regulators to force large employers such as Amazon and Starbucks to the bargaining table. 

“It’s not like we had a magic bullet,” she said. The companies “will continue to fight, and yet, workers are still coming together and demanding their rights.”