GOP Labor Bills Could Crush Union Organizing: What This Means for California Workers

In a move that could significantly alter the landscape of labor relations, Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, have introduced a package of seven bills targeting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). While framed as reforms to empower workers and streamline processes, these proposals raise serious concerns about their potential to hinder union formation and organizing efforts—particularly in states like California, where strong labor protections have long supported both private and public sector employees. California labor organizations should closely monitoring these developments. 

The bills, introduced on November 10, 2025, cover a range of changes to how unions interact with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and employers. Key provisions include requiring a two-thirds majority of eligible voters to participate in union representation elections for the results to count, banning voluntary union recognition (often called "card check"), and imposing fines on workers or unions for filing what the NLRB deems "frivolous" unfair labor practice (ULP) charges. Other measures would make it an unfair labor practice to hire undocumented immigrants, prohibit unions from using member dues for political advocacy without explicit consent, and lower barriers for employers to discipline workers engaging in picket line activities.

For private sector unions in California, these changes would strike at the heart of organizing campaigns. Under current NLRA rules, unions can secure recognition through majority support via signed authorization cards or secret-ballot elections overseen by the NLRB. The proposed ban on voluntary recognition would force all organizing into potentially contentious elections, where employer influence often sways outcomes. Coupled with the two-thirds participation threshold, this could make it exceedingly difficult for unions to win representation, especially in larger workplaces where voter turnout challenges are common. As former NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran noted in her critique, these reforms might render other pro-worker gestures in the package, like expedited first-contract negotiations, largely meaningless, as they erect formidable barriers to forming a union in the first place.

The proposed fines for "frivolous" ULP charges would deter enforcement of our nations labor laws. The NLRA has never imposed penalties on workers for filing charges, even if they're later dismissed. This novel approach could chill legitimate complaints, as employees might fear financial repercussions for challenging unfair practices. McFerran aptly described it as "intimidating for workers," pointing out that the NLRB already filters meritless claims without pursuing them. In California's dynamic private sector economy, such provisions would embolden employers to push boundaries, knowing that workers could hesitate to seek NLRB intervention.

The proposed "Protection on the Picket Line Act" would make it easier for employers to impose discipline for alleged misconduct on the picket line. Currently, under the NLRA, picketing is a protected concerted activity, allowing workers to protest peacefully outside their workplace to highlight labor disputes. While misconduct like harassment or slurs can currently lead to discipline, NLRB precedents afford some leeway for heated language in the heat of a dispute. This legislation would narrow the scope of protected activity, potentially exposing picketers to quicker repercussions and discouraging robust protest tactics that have been key to union successes.

While California's public safety employees fall under state jurisdiction through the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) rather than the NLRB, federal labor trends often ripple into state policies. If enacted, some of these federal changes could inspire similar restrictions in California, potentially limiting unions' ability to advocate for safer working conditions, better staffing, or legislative reforms that protect first responders. In California, where public employees enjoy robust protections under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and the Dills Act, any erosion of federal standards might encourage anti-union forces to challenge state laws.  

Pro-business groups like the National Right to Work Committee and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have lauded the package for promoting "worker choice" and secret-ballot elections. Yet, as union advocates argue, these measures often tip the scales toward employers, masking restrictions on collective action under the guise of fairness. The requirement for two-thirds voter turnout, for example, ignores the realities of workplace intimidation and low participation due to fear of retaliation.  

Conclusion

Looking ahead, the package's prospects remain uncertain in a divided Congress while the filibuster remains intact, but its introduction signals a renewed push to overhaul labor law. These bills, if passed, would complicate organizing while setting precedents that could influence California labor law.

Union members should engage with their leadership to advocacy for counter-legislation like the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act. The Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) is bipartisan legislation, supported by the Teamsters, designed to expedite the process of negotiating a union's first contract by setting strict deadlines for talks (start within 10 days, mediation at 90 days, then binding arbitration if talks fail) to prevent employers from stalling and denying workers fair terms. Teamsters President Sean O'Brien champions it as crucial for labor, forcing good-faith bargaining, while business groups like the U.S. Chamber and NFIB oppose it as government overreach. 

CA Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Protecting Officers From False Misconduct Claims

     In a 6-1 decision issued on November 10, 2025, the California Supreme Court invalidated Penal Code section 148.6, overturning its own prior ruling in People v. Stanistreet (2002) 29 Cal.4th 497. The case, Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles  2025 WL 3136580 (Cal., 2025), centered on the statute's requirement that complainants sign an advisory warning them that filing a knowingly false allegation of police misconduct is a crime. Justice Joshua Groban, writing for the majority, held that this provision violates the First Amendment by creating an undue chill on protected speech, i.e. complaints against peace officers.

    As counsel to numerous public safety unions and their members across California, we know our clients have been closely tracking this litigation. Unfortunately, it removes a critical safeguard against baseless accusations that can stunt officers' careers. 

Background and the Court's Reasoning

    Penal Code section 148.6, enacted in 1995, made it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false misconduct complaint against a peace officer (§ 148.6(a)(1)). More controversially, it mandated that agencies require complainants to read and sign an advisory before accepting a complaint, explicitly warning of potential criminal liability (§ 148.6(a)(2)). This was designed to deter frivolous or malicious filings while ensuring agencies investigated all public complaints under Penal Code section 832.5.

    The LAPPL sued the City of Los Angeles in 2017 after the City stopped enforcing the advisory requirement, citing federal rulings that deemed it unconstitutional. Lower courts, bound by Stanistreet, sided with the LAPPL and ordered compliance. On review, however, the Supreme Court reversed course, holding that section 148.6 discriminates based on content within the proscribable category of "knowingly false statements of fact," triggering heightened scrutiny.

    The Court explained that the law criminalizes false complaints against officers but leaves unregulated false statements in support of officers during investigations. This imbalance, the Court argued, risks distorting the "marketplace of ideas" by deterring one side of the debate. Requiring a signed warning before filing could intimidate even truthful complainants, who might fear prosecution if their accounts are later disbelieved. The Court emphasized that prohibitions on falsehoods must not unduly burden legitimate expression. 

    While acknowledging the state's interest in protecting officers from abusive claims, the majority held the statute wasn't sufficiently tailored. It noted ill-defined triggers for liability, no materiality or harm requirement, and the unusual admonition process, which together create "a potent disincentive" for good-faith reporting.

    Former UC Berkeley Law School Professor Justice Goodwin Liu dissented, arguing the ruling was "speculative" and that section 148.6 is no different from other anti-falsehood laws like perjury statutes. He stressed the real-world burdens on officers: "Our men and women in uniform have a hard enough job without having to deal with knowingly false allegations of misconduct."

The Benefits of the Invalidated Law: A Shield Against Career-Derailing Complaints

    For three decades, section 148.6 served as a vital tool in maintaining the integrity of misconduct investigations. False complaints aren't just nuisances; they can trigger lengthy probes under Penal Code section 832.5, during which officers may face administrative leave, reassignment, an inability to promote, or reputational harm. Even if ultimately exonerated, the process can stall career advancement, erode public trust, and lead to psychological stress.  

    The advisory requirement was particularly effective in discouraging malicious filings without blocking legitimate ones. It put complainants on notice and promoted some level of accountability in a system where officers are held to high standards but often lack reciprocal protections. By invalidating this law, the Court has removed a deterrent that helped filter out vendetta-driven or unfounded claims, potentially increasing the volume of investigations agencies must handle.

Potential Future Impacts on Peace Officers

    This ruling could have ripple effects for California's public safety professionals. Without this backstop, malicious complaints will feel emboldened to file complaints knowing there's little downside. This asymmetry leaves officers exposed, as false statements defending them remain unregulated. Agencies will see more false complaints and officers will face avoidable jeopardy. This could exacerbate burnout, recruitment problems and foster hesitation in high-stakes encounters.

    The California Supreme Court’s constitutional analysis focused on Penal Code section 148.6(a)’s asymmetrical criminalization of knowingly false complaints against officers while leaving false statements made by officers or witnesses in support of officers unregulated within the citizen complaint process. However, the Court did not consider the existing penalties for officers' false statements under Penal Code sections 832.7(c) and 13510.8(b)(1), which address officer dishonesty relating to the investigation of misconduct.  

Penal Code section 13510.8 defines "serious misconduct" to include "dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, false statements, intentionally filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, perjury." Officers found to have made false statements in an investigation face potential suspension or revocation of their peace officer certification, which effectively ends their law enforcement career.  

    The Opinion does provides a roadmap for the Legislature to craft narrower protections against frivolous complaints and false statements. The Court strongly suggested that a statute imposing symmetrical, material-harm-based liability for false statements by both complainants and officers, such as the disciplinary and decertification processes for officer dishonesty, would stand a much greater chance of passing constitutional muster. Such an amendment could also focus on any materially false statements intended to mislead or deceive and relevant to the determination of whether misconduct occurred.