California legislators pass hundreds of laws every year. But sometimes, they free themselves from following them.
On one emblematic issue, however, this may be the session when that changes: Lawmakers, who have pushed through major bills to support unions throughout California, may finally let their own staffers organize.
For at least the fifth time in the last 25 years, the effort came to an anticlimactic end last year as a legislative unionization bill , but failed in an Assembly committee on the last day of the session.
This year, there are a lot of pieces in place that could help the new push. For one: the in what is now California鈥檚 .
The legislation 鈥� and highlighted as on the first day of the current session Dec. 5 鈥� by new , who leads the committee where it has died four out of the five times it has been proposed.
鈥淲hat are we afraid of? Why are we afraid of our staff to have representation?鈥� the Inglewood Democrat told CalMatters today. 鈥淲e鈥檝e asked the farmers to let the farmworkers unionize. We asked the hotel owners to let hotel workers unionize and the restaurant owners to let restaurant folks unionize. And we鈥檙e not letting our own folks in our building unionize. We can鈥檛 continue this.鈥�
In addition, supports the idea of staff unionization. The incoming speaker, , who is set to , is one of 20 Assemblymembers and seven senators whose names were on the bill at introduction.
in Democratic state legislatures across the country, plus among , could also help the cause. Oregon became the first state to allow legislative staff to unionize in 2021. Similar efforts were started in Massachusetts, New York and Washington state.
鈥� one of the most prominent union champions in the Legislature from 2013 until last year, when she 鈥� says there鈥檚 no legitimate reason for legislative staff to be blocked from collective bargaining.
鈥淚t鈥檚 an argument that we hear always in unionizing efforts: Our place of work is special, it鈥檚 different, we have unique challenges,鈥� she told CalMatters. 鈥淲e have unions that are used to dealing with a variety of sticky situations. That鈥檚 something that can be worked out.鈥�
, there are more than 1,800 full-time staffers in the Assembly and Senate, including legislative directors, district coordinators, secretaries and aides.
Unionization isn鈥檛 the only area where The state Senate and Assembly also set rules for other state agencies and businesses that they don鈥檛 require themselves to follow: minimum wage, whistleblower protections, public access and more.
Dan Schnur, a politics professor at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine University, says there鈥檚 鈥渘o coherent argument鈥� to be made on why legislators should not abide by the laws they pass for other Californians. He also argues that 鈥渞ules for thee鈥� damages civic engagement.
鈥淭his is exactly the type of double standard that makes voters across the ideological spectrum absolutely despise politics and politicians,鈥� he said.
Legislative staffers unite
State employees other than legislative staff were , signed into law by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 1977.
Of the 200,000-plus state workers, ; managers, supervisors and some others are excluded. Last week, for instance, the union representing more than 2,700 state scientists . The union, which has been without an agreement since July 2020, is seeking 43% raises.
Concerns about past staff unionization bills have included treating the Assembly and Senate as one joint employer though they operate independently, as well as potential timing conflicts between labor contracts and .
Other lawmakers have also flagged concerns about outside interests such as unions having a say in the Legislature鈥檚 operations, where constituents鈥� voices are meant to be prioritized above all else.
鈥淧eople are comfortable trying to exploit our passions for public service. That鈥檚 why a union is absolutely needed.AUBREY RODRIGUEZ, A LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
But staff members say long hours and low pay can also be .
鈥淧eople are comfortable trying to exploit our passions for public service,鈥� said Aubrey Rodriguez, a legislative director. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why a union is absolutely needed.鈥�
And McKinnor said that if there were a strike, managers and supervisors would still be on duty, and legislators would still be able to vote.
鈥淲e can write. We can read. We can do some of our own work,鈥� she said. 鈥淣othing will stop.鈥�
Unionization isn鈥檛 the only labor law the Legislature exempts itself from. Lawmakers also aren鈥檛 required to pay minimum wage 鈥� though many choose to do so 鈥� or to . And , legislative staff weren鈥檛 included under the , which prohibits retaliation against state employees who report misconduct.
A foggy glass house
The Legislature wasn鈥檛 immune from the Me Too movement, which raised awareness into rampant sexual harassment and abuse in workplaces. In 2018, leaders released a decade鈥檚 worth of records that included 18 cases of alleged sexual harassment and that 鈥� but only after public pressure and .
Also in response, Senate and Assembly leaders . Last December, the unit released its first report, which said that since February 2019, 91 cases were substantiated and 86 resulted in disciplinary action, including nine dismissals.
The goal was to clear up the 鈥渆rroneous assumption that allegations are not being substantiated or that discipline has not been imposed,鈥� according to from legislative leaders to fellow lawmakers and staff.
But beyond the high-level numbers, the letter didn鈥檛 provide a lot of detail. It did not include names or specify disciplinary actions, other than the terminations.
That鈥檚 concerning to Ruth Ferguson, a former legislative staff member who helped start the coalition after her unsatisfactory experience with the .
鈥淚t appears they haven鈥檛 of reporting out high-level staffers or members who have been found to have done something inappropriate,鈥� Ferguson told CalMatters. 鈥淚t makes me wonder: Why hasn鈥檛 the public been given an explanation as to why?鈥�
The Legislature is exempt from the Public Records Act that applies to other state agencies. Instead, it鈥檚 covered by the Legislative Open Records Act, which does not require the release of misconduct reports.
The anti-sexual harassment coalition will focus this year on trying again to pass a bill to amend the Legislative Open Records Act to require the release of those records, using language similar to that applies to disclosing police misconduct.
鈥淭he justification [for those bills] was that there鈥檚 this lack of trust and transparency and that greater transparency would result in a fair and more just system,鈥� Ferguson said. 鈥淚 think similarly that鈥檚 really true in this case. For staffers in the legislature and the public, there鈥檚 no accountability mechanism.鈥�
Public meetings are another area where the Legislature doesn鈥檛 have to be as transparent as other elected officials. The 1953 and the 1967 Bagley-Keene Act require local governments and state agencies to conduct business at open meetings, with some exceptions for closed sessions requiring confidentiality, such as personnel issues.
The logic: 鈥淭he people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.鈥�
But that doesn鈥檛 apply to the Legislature. Under a 1973 law, legislators can gather privately in partisan caucuses. For example, Assembly Democrats at the state Capitol last spring on the speakership fight, then hammered out the deal for Rivas to succeed Rendon as speaker in in November at the Sacramento Convention Center.
鈥淭he most angry and resentful populists in both parties are driven by the accurate belief that most politicians think that they鈥檙e better than the rest of society,鈥� Schnur said. 鈥淓very one of these double standards reinforces that belief.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.