Responding to the Trump administration‘s hampering of federal regulators, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a bill greatly expanding California’s power over workplace disputes and union elections.
The legislation, Assembly Bill 288, gives the state authority to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other disputes between private employers and workers in the event the National Labor Relations Board fails to respond.
As Newsom signed the worker rights bill, his office drew a sharp contrast with the gridlock in Washington, D.C., where a government shutdown looms.
“With the federal government not only asleep at the wheel, but driving into incoming traffic, it is more important than ever that states stand up to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is a proud labor state — and we will continue standing up for the workers that keep our state running and our economy booming.”
The NLRB, which is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions, has been functionally paralyzed since it lost quorum in January, when Trump fired one of its board members.
The Trump administration has also proposed sweeping cuts to the agency’s staff and canceled leases for regional offices in many states, while Amazon, SpaceX and other companies brought lodged challenges to the 90-year-old federal agency’s constitutionality in court.
With this law in place, workers unable to get a timely response at the federal level can petition the California Public Employment Relations Board to enforce their rights.
The law creates a Public Employee Relations Board Enforcement Fund, financed by civil penalties paid by employers cited for labor violations to help pay for the added responsibilities for the state labor board.
“This is the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “California workers will no longer be forced to rely on a failing federal agency when they join together to unionize.”
The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is hampered in other ways.
The law could draw legal challenges over whether the bill infringes on federal law.
It was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, which warned that the bill improperly attempts to give California’s labor board authority even as the federal agency’s regional offices continuing to process elections as well as charges filed by workers and employers.
The chamber argued that “courts have repeatedly held that states are prohibited from regulating this space.”
Catherine Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law counters, however, that in the first few decades of the NLRB’s functioning, state labor agencies had much more leeway to enforce federal labor rights.
She said the law “simply proposes going back to the system that existed for three decades.”
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) said the bill will ensure California workers can continue to unionize and bargain.
“The current President is attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees’ fundamental right to join a union,”McKinnor said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and frankly, un-American. California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize.”
NEW YORK — In the days since the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, workers in a variety of industries have been fired for their comments on his death.
It’s hardly the first time workers have lost their jobs over things they say publicly — including in social media posts. In the U.S., laws can vary across states, but overall, there’s very few legal protections for employees who are punished for speech made in or out of private workplaces.
“Most people think they have a right to free speech … but that doesn’t necessarily apply in the workplace,” said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO. “Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections for that type of speech at work.”
Add to that the prevalence of social media, which has made it increasingly common to track employees’ conduct outside of work or for internet users to publish information about them with the intent of harming or harassing them.
Employers have leeway
Protections for workers vary from one state to the next. In New York, if an employee is participating in a weekend political protest, but not associating themselves with the organization that employs them, their employer cannot fire them for that activity when they return to work. But if that same employee is at a company event on a weekend and talks about their political viewpoints in a way that makes others feel unsafe or the target of discrimination or harassment, then they could face consequences at work, Matsis-McCready said.
Most of the U.S. defaults to “at-will” employment law — which essentially means employers can choose to hire and fire as they see fit, including over employees’ speech.
“The 1st Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees’ speech,” said Andrew Kragie, an attorney who specializes in employment and labor law at Maynard Nexsen. “It actually does protect employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’ speech.”
Kragie said there are “pockets of protection” around the U.S. under various state laws, such as statutes that forbid punishing workers for their political views. But the interpretation of how that gets enforced changes, he notes, making the waters murky.
Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin and faculty director of the school’s Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, also points to some state laws that say employers can’t fire their workers for “legal off-duty conduct.” But there’s often an exception for conduct seen as disruptive to an employer’s business or reputation, which could be grounds to fire someone over public comments or social media posts.
“In this scenario, if somebody feels like one of their employees has done something that suggests they are glorifying or celebrating a murder, an employer might still be able to fire them even with one of those laws on the books,” Collis said.
For public employees, including school teachers, postal workers and elected officials, the process is a bit different. That’s because the 1st Amendment plays a unique role when the government is the employer, Collis explains — and the Supreme Court has ruled that if an employee is acting in a private capacity but speaking on a matter of public concern, they’re protected.
However, that has yet to stop the public sector from restricting speech in the aftermath of Kirk’s death. For instance, leaders at the Pentagon unveiled a “zero tolerance” policy for any posts or comments from troops deemed to be making light of or celebrating the killing of Kirk.
The policy, announced by the Defense Department’s top spokesman, Sean Parnell, on social media Thursday, came hours after numerous conservative military influencers and activists began forwarding posts they considered problematic to Parnell and his boss, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
“It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American,” Parnell wrote Thursday, referring to the Department of Defense by the name adopted recently by President Trump.
A surge of political debate
The ubiquity of social media is making it easier than ever to share opinions about politics and major news events as they’re unfolding. But posting on social media leaves a record, and in times of escalating political polarization, those declarations can be seen as damaging to the reputation of an individual or their employer.
“People don’t realize when they’re on social media, it is the town square,” said Amy Dufrane, chief executive of the Human Resource Certification Institute. “They’re not having a private conversation with the neighbor over the fence. They’re really broadcasting their views.”
Political debates are certainly not limited to social media and are increasingly making their way into the workplace as well.
“The gamification of the way we communicate in the workplace — Slack and Teams, chat and all these things — they’re very similar to how you might interact on Instagram or other social media, so I do think that makes it feel a little less formal and somebody might be more inclined to take a step and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe this happened,’” Matsis-McCready said.
Many employers unprepared
In the tense, divided climate in the United States at the moment, many human resource professionals have expressed that they’re unprepared to address politically charged discussions in the workplace, according to the Human Resource Certification Institute. But those conversations are going to happen, so employers need to set policies about what is acceptable or unacceptable workplace conduct, Dufrane said.
“HR has got to really drill down and make sure that they’re super clear on their policies and practices and communicating to their employees on what are their responsibilities as an employee of the organization,” Dufrane said.
Many employers are reviewing their policies on political speech and providing training about what appropriate conduct looks like, both inside and outside the organization, she said. And the brutal nature of Kirk’s killing may have led some of them to react more strongly in the days since his death.
“Because of the violent nature of what some political discussion is now about, I think there is a real concern from employers that they want to keep the workplace safe and that they’re being extra vigilant about anything that could be viewed as a threat, which is their duty,” Matsis-McCreedy said.
Employees can also be seen as ambassadors of a company’s brand, and their political speech can dilute that brand and hurt its reputation, depending on what is being said and how it is being received. That is leading more companies to act on what employees are saying online, she said.
“Some of the individuals that had posted and their posts went viral, all of a sudden the phone lines of their employers were just nonstop calls complaining,” Matsis-McCready said.
Still, experts such as Collis don’t anticipate a significant change in how employers monitor their workers’ speech — noting that online activity has been in the spotlight for at least the last 15 years.
“Employers are already — and have been for a very long time — vetting employees based on what they’re posting on social media,” he said.
Bussewitz and Grantham-Philips write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin in Washington contributed to this report.
The strawberry delivery driver was making his last drop-off in Little Tokyo, unloading nearly a dozen boxes onto the sidewalk outside the Japanese American National Museum.
Inside the building, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies were holding a news conference about a Democratic Party plan to fight back against President Trump’s efforts to maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives through redistricting in Texas.
Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios knew nothing of the powerful men’s clash as he stacked cardboard boxes filled with ripe, red fruit Thursday morning. He also didn’t know that dozens of Border Patrol agents were massing nearby.
Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios at his 48th birthday celebration this year.
(Courtesy of the family)
Minguela was caught between the two spectacles. His life was about to be upended.
In the days that followed, Newsom accused the Trump administration of trying to intimidate the president’s political opponents by sending the immigration agents. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin has said the agents were “focused on enforcing the law” not on Newsom.
Newsom has since submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records from the administration about why agents arrived at the museum as he was announcing his latest skirmish with the president.
For Minguela, who has been in the country for close to a decade, that day felt a lot more personal. He was arrested by Border Patrol agents and now faces deportation back to Mexico. Speaking from behind a plexiglass window at the “B-18” federal detention center in downtown L.A. on Monday, Minguela stressed that he is not a criminal.
“One comes here to work, not commit crimes,” said Minguela, who wore the same red T-shirt and jeans he’d been arrested in four days prior.
When asked last week whether the person arrested outside the news conference had a criminal record, a Homeland Security spokesperson said the agency would share a criminal rap sheet when it was available. After four follow-up emails from a reporter, McLaughlin on Saturday said agents had arrested “two illegal aliens” in the vicinity of Newsom’s news conference — including “an alleged Tren de Aragua gang member and narcotics trafficker.”
Asked twice to clarify whether the alleged gang member and narcotics trafficker were the same person, Homeland Security officials did not respond. But when presented with Minguela’s biographical information Monday, the department said he had been arrested because he overstayed his visa — a civil, not criminal, offense.
Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino told Fox News on Aug. 15 that operations were based on intelligence about the alleged Tren de Aragua gang member. They arrested that man two blocks away from Newsom’s news conference.
Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios took this image of a federal agent looking at his identification outside the Japanese American National Museum on Aug. 14.
(Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios)
Two law enforcement sources who asked to remain anonymous as they were not authorized to speak with the media told The Times they had received word from federal authorities that Little Tokyo had been targeted because of its proximity to the Newsom event.
For those who know Minguela, it felt like mala suerte — bad luck.
As Martha Franco, one of Minguela’s employers, put it, “He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
::
Like every other weekday, Minguela rose before the sun to start his 2 a.m. delivery route Thursday. He had around eight places to hit.
He’d worked for the same produce company for around eight years and never missed a day.
That day, Minguela left his partner and their three children — ages 15, 12 and 7 — asleep in their home, hours before the kids would head off for their first day of school. His partner, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, had worked the night before as a cashier at a liquor store. She did not get off work until about 12:30 a.m. She brought him coffee as he started his day.
Shortly before 6 a.m., Minguela called his partner to wake her up so she could take the kids to school. Throughout the morning, they checked in with each other on how the day was progressing.
She called to warn him about immigration agents at Slauson and Miles avenues in Huntington Park. Over the last couple of months, as immigration raids became a part of daily life, the couple’s world had slowly shrunk.
Minguela had overstayed a tourist visa after fleeing the Mexican state of Coahuila in 2015 because of violence he faced there, his partner said. She said he had worked servicing ATMs there, was kidnapped twice and at one point was stabbed by people intent on stealing the money. After his employers cut staff, she said, he lost his job, helping drive his decision to leave.
Because he was undocumented, he rarely went out, leaving the house only for work and errands. Minguela began wondering whether it was even safe for him to pick up the kids from school, his partner said. He planned ahead, made copies of his keys and left money for his family in the event that he was grabbed by immigration agents.
That morning, he reassured his partner he was fine. He was heading to his last stop at a tea room in Little Tokyo.
“Ten mucho cuidado,” his partner told him.
Be very careful.
::
The Border Patrol agents descended on 1st Street in Little Tokyo about 11:30 a.m., just as Newsom’s news conference got underway.
They were decked out in camouflage and helmets, their faces obscured by black masks. One wore an American flag neck gaiter. They were armed, some with AR-15-style weapons.
Nearby, Minguela was busy unloading several boxes of strawberries and a box of apples. He didn’t notice the agents until they were close behind him. Then, he ducked back inside the van.
A video shared with The Times shows at least eight Border Patrol agents as they passed the van, its side door wide-open. They did not stop. Then, one appeared to double back and peek inside.
Minguela said he feels he was targeted based on his physical appearance.
When the agent began asking him questions, Minguela said he pulled a red “know your rights” card out of his wallet and handed it to the agent.
“This is of no use to me,” he said the agent told him. Another agent soon joined them.
Minguela told them he didn’t have to talk. But they kept asking questions, he said. What was his nationality? What was his name? Did he have papers?
“They demanded I show them some kind of identification,” he said. “Insisting, insisting.”
The agents were armed, and Minguela said he grew scared. Believing he had no choice, Minguela said, he gave one of the agents his California driver’s license.
Minguela tried to call his partner twice, but she was at a doctor’s appointment and couldn’t answer. At 11:22 a.m., he sent her three WhatsApp messages:
“Amor ya me agarró la migra..no te preocupes.”
“Todo va a estar bien.”
“Diosito nos va a ayudar mucho.”
Federal agents produced a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum, where Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a redistricting news conference on Aug. 14.
(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)
Immigration had gotten him, he said, but everything would be fine. God would help them, he assured her.
Minguela sent her a picture of an agent holding his license and seemingly plugging the information from it into a phone. Then, the agent arrested him.
Video captured Minguela, hands cuffed behind his back, as the agent linked an arm through his. He walked Minguela away from the van, toward Bovino.
After conferring with colleagues, the agent walked Minguela back toward his delivery van. Bovino patted the agent on the back and said, “Well done.”
At about the same time, one of Minguela’s employers, Isaias Franco, received a call from Little Tokyo warning him about the immigration activity. He immediately called Minguela, whose cell number is saved in his phone under “paisa,” countryman. Both hail from the Mexican city of Torreón.
No answer.
Franco texted him, trying to tell him what was unfolding.
By that time, though, Minguela was already in handcuffs.
::
Hours before visitation began at the detention center in downtown L.A. on Monday, families began lining up along a driveway where “B-18” was stamped in black on a concrete wall.
Someone had scrawled on the ground in chalk: “Abolish ICE” and “Viva La Raza.” Another message read, “Civil disobedience becomes a duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”
By 11:30 a.m., 18 people were waiting for visitation to start at 1 p.m. In less than an hour, that number had ballooned to 33.
Three siblings there to visit their uncle who had been arrested at a car wash in Long Beach the day before. A woman whose uncle was taken from a Home Depot in Pasadena. Two sisters whose loved one had been arrested at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in.
They carried bags of medication and sweaters for detained loved ones, because they’d heard it was cold inside. Each person hoped to get in before visitation ended at 4 p.m., although it seemed increasingly unlikely for those at the back of the line.
Martha and Isaias, Minguela’s employers, were among the hopeful. It was their third attempt to see him. The day of Minguela’s arrest, they got there too late.
The next day, they arrived earlier and were in luck. On the advice of others in line, they brought a jacket to keep Minguela warm.
In the years they’ve employed Minguela, they’ve only ever seen his serious, professional side. But during the five minutes they got to visit with him Friday, he spent most of it in tears, hardly able to speak.
The couple assured him they would help however they could.
They returned on Monday, this time bringing a blue Ralph Lauren shirt and a pair of black New Balance socks so he could change clothing. Isaias and the couple’s son, Carlos, had both come, despite starting their workday at 2 a.m.
“We’re going to be with him until the end,” Martha said. “He’s part of our family. He’s one of us.”
As the hours wore on, people in line squatted or sat on the concrete to rest their aching legs. Martha flitted around, advising people to bring sweaters for loved ones and letting them know the officers allowed in only one item of clothing for each detained person.
By the start of visitation, 44 people were in line. Martha was No. 19. Families exited red-eyed, tears dripping down their cheeks after getting only a few minutes with their loved ones.
Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios several years ago, with his son.
(Courtesy of the family)
About 3 p.m., after waiting three and a half hours, the Francos handed the officer their passports and identification, before finally making it inside. They had to turn off their phones. They could give Minguela only the T-shirt. The officer said no to the socks, a prohibited second item of clothing.
Minguela beamed when he saw the Francos, who greeted him through the plexiglass window. He was trying to maintain his spirits, but said he felt “impotente.” Powerless.
The Francos told him not to sign anything.
“Vamos a estar con usted,” Isaias told Minguela, letting him know they would be with him. He and Carlos fist bumped Minguela through the Plexiglass.
“Échale ganas,” Isaias added, keep going.
::
Minguela’s children have hardly stopped crying since his arrest.
During the eight years he and his partner have been together, he’s helped raise her two children and their 7-year-old son, who is autistic.
Minguela’s lawyer, Alex Galvez, said the hope is that his client will be released on bond, as he initially entered the country lawfully and is the primary breadwinner for the family. The lawyer said he believes Minguela was arrested in defiance of a federal judge’s order that immigration authorities cannot racially profile people or use roving patrols to target immigrants.
“It was a political opportunity. He was one of the two guys picked up right during Newsom’s press conference,” Galvez said. “They had to show something for it.”
Just days before his arrest, Minguela’s family had celebrated his 48th birthday. His partner made him his favorite dish, shrimp ceviche.
Her birthday was Tuesday. The family had planned to go on a rare outing for a dinner of enchiladas de mole.
But they spent the day without him. There was no celebration.
The children asked their mother, as they have every day for nearly a week: When is papá coming home?
Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.
She rides three buses from her Panorama City home to her job as a caregiver for an 83-year-old Sherman Oaks woman with dementia, and lately she’s been worrying about getting nabbed by federal agents.
When I asked what she’ll do if she gets deported, B., who’s 60 and asked me to withhold her name, paused to compose herself.
“I don’t want to cry,” she said, but losing her $19 hourly job would be devastating, because she sends money to the Philippines to support her family.
Steve Lopez
Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.
The world is getting grayer each day thanks to an epic demographic wave. In California, 22% of the state’s residents will be 65 and older by 2040, up by 14% from 2020.
“At a time where it seems fewer and fewer of us want to work in long-term care, the need has never been greater,” Harvard healthcare policy analyst David C. Grabowski told The Times’ Emily Alpert Reyes in January.
So how will millions of aging Americans be able to afford care for physical and cognitive decline, especially given President Trump’s big beautiful proposed cuts to Medicaid, which covers about two-thirds of nursing home residents? And who will take care of those who don’t have family members who can step up?
A building where multiple caregivers live in a cramped studio apartment in Panorama City.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
There are no good answers at the moment. Deporting care providers might make sense if there were a plan to make the jobs more attractive to homegrown replacements, but none of us would bet a day-old doughnut on that happening.
Nationally and in California, the vast majority of workers in care facilities and private settings are citizens. But employers were already having trouble recruiting and keeping staff to do jobs that are low-paying and difficult, and now Trump administration policies could further shrink the workforce.
Earlier this year, the administration ordered an end to programs offering temporary protected status and work authorization, and the latest goal in Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is to make 3,000 arrests daily.
“People are worried about the threat of deportation … but also about losing whatever job they have and being unable to secure other work,” said Aquilina Soriano Versoza, director of the Pilipino Workers Center, who estimated that roughly half of her advocacy group’s members are undocumented.
In the past, she said, employers didn’t necessarily ask for work authorization documents, but that’s changing. And she fears that given the political climate, some employers will “feel like they have impunity to exploit workers,” many of whom are women from Southeast Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Mexico and Latin America.
That may already be happening.
“We’ve seen a lot of fear, and we’ve seen workers who no longer want to pursue their cases” when it comes to fighting wage theft, said Yvonne Medrano, an employment rights lawyer with Bet Tzedek, a legal services nonprofit.
A gathering at the Pilipino Workers Center in Los Angeles in Historic Filipinotown. Aquilina Soriano Versoza, director of the center, says, “People are worried about the threat of deportation … but also about losing whatever job they have and being unable to secure other work.”
(Ringo Chiu / For The Times)
Medrano said the workers are worried that pursuing justice in the courts will expose them to greater risk of getting booted out of the country. In one case, she said, a worker was owed a final paycheck for a discontinued job, but the employer made a veiled threat, warning that showing up to retrieve it could be costly.
Given the hostile environment, some workers are giving up and going home.
“We’ve seen an increase in workers self-deporting,” Medrano said.
Conditions for elder care workers were bleak enough before Trump took office. Two years ago, I met with documented and undocumented caregivers and although they’re in the healthcare business, some of them didn’t have health insurance for themselves.
I met with a cancer survivor and caregiver who was renting a converted garage without a kitchen. And I visited an apartment in Panorama City where Josephine Biclar, in her early 70s, was struggling with knee and shoulder injuries while still working as a caregiver.
Biclar was sharing a cramped studio with two other caregivers. They used room dividers to carve their space into sleeping quarters. When I checked with Biclar this week, she said four women now share the same space. All of them have legal status, but because of low wages and the high cost of housing, along with the burden of supporting families abroad, they can’t afford better living arrangements.
B. and another care provider share a single room, at a cost of $400 apiece, from a homeowner in Panorama City. B. said her commute takes more than an hour each way, and during her nine-hour shift, her duties for her 83-year-old client include cooking, feeding and bathing.
She’s only working three days a week at the moment and said additional jobs are hard to come by given her status and the immigration crackdown. She was upset that for the last two months, she couldn’t afford to send any money home.
“People are worried about the threat of deportation, but also about losing whatever job they have and being unable to secure other work, said Aquilina Soriano Versoza, executive director of the Pilipino Workers Center.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Retired UCLA scholar Fernando Torres-Gil, who served as President Clinton’s assistant secretary on aging, said “fear and chaos” in the elder care industry are not likely to end during this presidential administration. And given budget constraints, California will be hard-pressed to do more for caregivers and those who need care.
But he thinks the growing crisis could eventually lead to an awakening.
“We’re going to see more and more older folks without long-term care,” Torres-Gil said. “Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans will get away from talking about open borders and talk about selective immigration” that serves the country’s economic and social needs.
The U.S. is not aging alone, Torres-Gil pointed out. The same demographic shifts and healthcare needs are hitting the rest of the world, and other countries may open their doors to workers the U.S. sends packing.
“As more baby boomers” join the ranks of those who need help, he said, “we might finally understand we need some kind of leadership.”
It’s hard not to be cynical these days, but I’d like to think he’s onto something.
Meanwhile, I’m following leads and working different angles on this topic. If you’re having trouble finding or paying for care, or if you’re on the front lines as a provider, I’m hoping you will drop me a line.
