The Brief

In one big way, Gov. Gavin Newsom is tougher on public employee unions than his Republican counterpart in Texas: Making state workers show up in the office.

After facing strong opposition from workers, it took Texas Gov. Greg Abbott three months to reverse his 2025 ban on remote work for state employees. But Newsom, whose return-to-office mandate has been in effect since July 1, shows no signs of backing down.

It’s a stance that has upset — and at times befuddled — some state workers who are calling for the governor to scrap the four-day-a-week in-office policy as they hammer out new labor agreements.

Typically, they’re allies to the Democratic governor. They helped him fight off a recall in 2021, and they encouraged their members to vote for him against his Republican opponents.

More importantly to them, they maintain they’re just as effective at home, which they say they proved when Newsom ordered them to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s confusing to people when they think that they’ve done a great job to be told, ‘Well we don’t think it’s good enough and you should incur going back into the office,’” said D’Arcy McLeod, chairperson of the Professional Engineers in California Government’s bargaining team.

Roughly 108,000 of California’s more than 245,900 state employees are affected by the mandate, according to the state human resources department. The others generally already are required to work at a specific location five days a week, including prison, firefighting, law enforcement, and custodial employees.

Service Employees International Union Local 1000, California’s largest state worker union, represents 96,000 employees and is in contract negotiations. It argues that remote work saves taxpayers and employees money, reduces traffic and lowers emissions — all without affecting productivity.

Newsom’s mandate allows exemptions on a case-by-case basis, including for those who live 50 miles or farther from their worksite, or who conduct work outside the office, such as telehealth providers and inspectors. Public transportation costs for commuting are also reimbursable.

But that isn’t enough for SEIU, which in May filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the California Public Employment Relations Board. It also threw its support behind a bill that would give state agencies more authority to shape their hybrid work policies.

“A blanket mandate does not work for all the jobs that our workers do,” said Anica Walls, the union’s president. “Let the departments decide.”

California exceptionalism?

States have taken different approaches to calling workers back to the office since the pandemic. Republican-led Nevada and Democratic-led New Mexico require state employees to be in the office five days a week, for example. Utah with a Republican governor wants them at the office twice a week.

But Newsom’s blanket policy appears to be an outlier among other blue states with robust public employee unions: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon and Washington state still embrace remote work in some capacity. It also differs from Texas, a Republican-led state that Newsom has contrasted with California.

A few months after President Donald Trump began his second term and called for federal employees to return to the office, Abbott banned remote work for Texas state employees. But following a multi-agency survey that found that telework did not curb productivity and helped reduce turnover, Abbott walked back the move.

Newsom “is a man who has talked about the importance of innovation, wrote an entire book about government adapting to technology and providing services in a more cost-effective way,” said Ted Toppin, the executive director of the engineers union.

“It strikes me as interesting and ironic that Texas would have a more modern, flexible and efficient take on state employee telework.”

Despite a state audit that concluded that telework could save California as much as $225 million a year, Newsom moved forward with his March 2025 executive order directing workers back into the office at least four days a week.

In May during a state budget presentation, Newsom told reporters that he is “empathetic to change,” but that returning to the office helps build a sense of community. The governor has also contended that in-person work fosters collaboration, accountability and helps boost small businesses.

McLeod said he’s surprised Newsom remains resolute to the mandate even after the audit found that remote work proved successful during and after the pandemic.

“Every single Newsom appointed official that testified for the state auditor indicated that … the work that was being delivered during telework was substantially of higher quality and more efficient,” said McLeod of the engineers union.

The CalPERS Sacramento Regional Office in downtown Sacramento on July 15, 2026. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters

What unions wanted from Newsom

In some ways the rift echoes labor disputes from California’s last two governors.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out swinging against public employees with unsuccessful ballot measures that were designed to cut their influence. He later imposed unpaid furloughs on public employees during the Great Recession.

Then Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown battled with unions over pensions, passing a law that curbed retirement benefits and required workers to chip in more for their benefits. He had a reputation for being stingy with raises, too.

Public employee unions were optimistic about Newsom. He offered concessions when he asked workers for temporary pay reductions during the pandemic, gave one-time bonuses to many employees and negotiated contracts that often included goodies for workers in hard-to-fill positions even if the deals didn’t please everyone.

Then came the fight over returning to the office.

Besides union leaders, Newsom’s steadfast commitment to in-person work has baffled Steve Maviglio, a Democratic political consultant who has worked with public employee unions on pension issues. For Newsom, a Democratic politician who is likely eyeing a bid for the presidency, “it’s political malpractice to come across as anti-labor,” said Maviglio.

“The only thing you’ll be able to say is that ‘I stood up to state workers,’ which isn’t particularly helpful in a Democratic primary where labor is the key constituency nationwide for Democrats.”

But for Will Swaim, chief executive of the libertarian think tank California Policy Center, Newsom’s fight with the unions signals something larger than remote work. Rather, it is a “policy disagreement that has turned into a foundational challenge to democracy,” said Swaim.

SEIU 1000 has donated at least $2 million to current members of the Legislature, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. In addition to its contract, the union is pushing for more flexible telework policies through a legislative proposal currently in the state Senate.

Through its campaign donations and labor talks, SEIU is attempting to wrest control from Newsom, a publicly elected official, over who gets to shape policies over government work, according to Swaim.

“That’s simply undemocratic,” said Swaim. “I don’t know anybody out there who believes that in their jobs they could tell their boss, ‘I’m not coming to the office, no matter what you want.’ It just doesn’t fly.”

But bosses should work to accommodate current employees, according to SEIU president Walls — especially if they have presumably bigger ambitions to oversee even more workers.

“As a state employee I would have trouble voting for someone who would be the boss of federal employees when I know he hasn’t shown to be a stellar employer to state employees,” said Walls.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The annual Día de los Muertos celebration by Self Help Graphics & Art is coming home to Boyle Heights this year. 

The block party will be held Nov. 7 outside its building on 1st and Anderson streets, and will feature live performances by Los Lobos and La Santa Cecilia. 

Self Help Graphics has been under renovation for years, with its Día de los Muertos celebration often held at the East LA Civic Center. The building is expected to reopen in 2027.

“Día de los Muertos at Self Help Graphics has always been a homecoming — a day when our community gathers to remember our loved ones through art, music, and ceremony,” said Self Help Graphics executive director Paulina Flores in a statement. “This year, that word carries even more meaning as we celebrate block-party style on Anderson Street and begin our return to our Boyle Heights home.”

The 12,000-square-foot building is being transformed into a cultural center that meets museum standards, featuring seismic retrofitting, an expanded printmaking studio, upgraded gallery lighting and a larger multipurpose room for community gatherings.

A key player in the Chicano movement of the 1970s, Self Help Graphics & Art was founded in the East LA garage of Sister Karen Boccalero, a Franciscan nun and printmaker. It started with a small group of young Latino artists who used their medium to spread social justice messages. 

From the onset, these artists involved members of the community in the process of making art and organizing programs, such as a 1972 Día de los Muertos event considered to be the first public commemoration in the United States of a tradition rooted in Mexico’s Indigenous origins. Community art workshops will also be offered this year.

Here’s what to know:

53rd Annual Día de los Muertos Celebration

Attendees will have an opportunity to record interviews with community members at an oral history station hosted by the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Self Help Graphics teaching artists will help attendees create miniature altars.

Details:

2 p.m. — A ceremonial procession featuring Aztec dancers will guide attendees from Mariachi Plaza to Self Help Graphics & Art

Community art workshop series

Self Help Graphics & Art is offering a series of Día de los Muertos community art workshops from 12 to 3 p.m. beginning this Saturday.

Proposition 40, also known as the billionaire tax, is the most contentious fight on Californians’ ballots this November.

The proposal to impose a one-time asset tax on the net worth of the state’s approximately 200 billionaires has divided Democrats, galvanized progressives and sparked fierce pushback from business groups and the state’s wealthy tech sector. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has poured more than $138 million into the campaign against the measure — including two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42 — and is among a handful of billionaires who have moved residences or business assets out of the state in an attempt to avoid the proposed tax. In total, opponents have raised more than $205 million to stop Prop. 40, according to campaign finance records.

It would also set up an entirely new system of taxes in a state that doesn’t traditionally tax wealth. That would be challenging to implement and experts say is sure to invite litigation. Here are some common questions and answers about how the measure would work.

How would the state assess the tax?

Aside from local taxes on real estate and some business equipment, California isn’t in the business of valuing and taxing personal property.

Prop. 40 would require the state, within six months, to create a way to assess the value of a wide range of holdings: billionaires’ stock, investment accounts and business interests, but also their art collections, wine vaults, cars and anything else that stores wealth.

“I have a client who has a machine gun collection,” said Jon Feldhammer, a San Francisco tax attorney who said he is advising several clients who would be or believe they could be subject to the billionaire tax.

The definition of wealth and property has to be broad to close possible loopholes, said Kirk Stark, a UCLA tax law professor.

“Otherwise there would be a very simple workaround, which is, if there’s something that’s exempt then you know there would be an incentive to just shift wealth from one form to another,” Stark said.

Ensuring those subject to the tax aren’t underreporting their assets would require the state’s Franchise Tax Board to hire more people for appraisals and auditing, Stark said.

“It can be done,” he said. “But it’s going to take a huge investment of resources to actually pull it off.”

Franchise Tax Board spokesperson Andrew LePage declined to say how many staff the agency would need to implement Prop. 40. Currently, the board doesn't appraise property but sometimes auditors "examine asset values reported by taxpayers to ensure accuracy," he said.

Chris Parker, a former attorney for the tax board who now works as a tax attorney with the firm Baker Tilly, said the board has “no way of knowing anyone’s net wealth.”

Ariel Jurow Kleiman, a tax policy professor at the University of Southern California, doesn’t think the state would have a hard time putting the tax into effect. Stocks, which make up a substantial part of billionaires’ wealth, are easily valued, she said. For more “bespoke” property like art and jewelry, California could look to the Internal Revenue Service’s federal tax on inherited property.

“There are commonsense methods like looking at comparable assets or looking to available markets to see how comps are valued,” she said. “We wouldn't be asking people to reinvent the wheel here.”

Experts do expect disputes over the value of privately held businesses.

Feldhammer said many startup founders have raised money for their companies but haven’t yet sold any products. He criticized the ballot measure for defining a company’s worth as the most recent amount of investment money it raised, which diverges from how the IRS calculates an asset’s fair market value for the estate tax.

“How do you value a company that is not on the public market? It doesn’t even have a product yet. It’s not making any money,” he said.

He said he expects clients to mount lengthy legal challenges arguing the law overvalues their business holdings.

“These are people who have oftentimes plenty of wealth to spend on legal fees to put up the best defense money can buy,” he said.

Will billionaires leave?

The campaign against the measure warns that billionaires will flee California, depriving the state of billions of dollars in income tax revenue that helps fund the state budget. Experts say there’s no way to know whether the tax will spark a large-scale exodus.

Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan economics professor who studies tax policy, said there’s very little evidence to gauge how billionaires could react to California’s tax, partly because the proposal is unique.

California experts considering the tax have looked at wealth taxes in European countries to try to discern the impact of Prop. 40. In 1990, 12 countries had wealth taxes. Today, only four remain. Many countries abandoned them because they were difficult and expensive to implement, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. But Slemrod said those examples are “not immediately applicable” to Prop. 40 because they differed significantly in design: Tax rates were much lower, they were intended to be permanent and the money was not earmarked for special interests.

“I wouldn’t jump from the evidence we have to California,” Slemrod said.

But one issue that could matter significantly for California, Slemrod said, is that it is much easier to move assets between states than between countries, as sometimes happened in Europe. Spain allowed its provinces to enact wealth taxes and research suggests that rich people changed residences based on tax rates.

Researchers at the Hoover Institution, a conservative policy think tank, conducted an analysis suggesting Californians need not look at history to figure out Prop. 40’s impact. Tax flight has already happened. They estimate that billionaires representing 30% of the tax base have publicly said they have left, lowering state revenue estimates by $60 billion and permanently altering California’s income tax collection.

Feldhammer, the tax lawyer, said “a third to half” of his clients have left the state over the proposed tax. He declined to say how many clients that is. Other tax lawyers told CalMatters that clients who are worth less than $1 billion are also considering moving to avoid limiting their earning potential.

Billionaires who didn’t leave before Jan. 1 would face taxes on their assets anyway; the measure would apply to anyone who was a California resident on that date.

But Feldhammer said he expects people to sue over the measure’s retroactive nature, pointing to two U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 1920s that held it was unconstitutional to apply the federal estate and gift taxes to assets transferred before those laws were enacted. In 1994, the court ruled that retroactive taxes could be constitutional in certain limited circumstances.

Asked how he’s advising clients who are considering leaving California, Feldhammer said there’s a “reasonable argument that the law may be unconstitutionally retroactive — but to take advantage of that, you’re going to have to leave.”

Would it allow the state to tax my retirement?

If you’re not a billionaire, no.

Even for billionaires, Prop. 40 exempts pensions and individual retirement accounts from the asset tax. There are some exceptions, most notably for Roth IRAs that contain more than $10 million.

Misleading advertisements from opponents claim the tax would allow California soon to eat into retirement savings for average Californians. They’re supporting Prop. 42, which would block the proposed billionaire tax by broadly banning any new taxes on personal property such as investment, retirement and pension accounts. Brin’s political spending group, Building a Better California, put it on the ballot, and unions representing firefighters, police and construction workers support it. (If both measures pass, whichever receives more “yes” votes becomes law.)

Proponents of Prop. 42 say their measure would protect the pensions and retirement accounts of teachers, firefighters and middle-class workers from being taxed before they withdraw the money.

“A new tax on Californians’ retirement and life savings would be devastating,” Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association, said in a press release.

There are no active proposals to tax those accounts on the ballot or in the Legislature. Lawmakers who have floated such wealth taxes in the past have gotten nowhere.

Still, Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, which supports Prop. 42, denied being deceptive and said it’s “within the realm of realization” for California to tax middle-class workers’ retirement accounts.

“I think it’s more important to be proactive in this area,” he said.

How would the money be used?

Proponents say the billionaire tax is intended to backfill federal cuts to the state’s expansive Medi-Cal health program for low-income residents. State officials project the cuts, enacted as part of President Donald Trump’s 2025 budget bill known as H.R. 1, could amount to $30 billion a year.

The initiative gives the Legislature broad authority to decide how to spend the money. Of the revenue, 90% percent would be put in a special fund for healthcare; the other 10% would be put in a special fund to pay for schools and food assistance like CalFresh, which was also targeted by federal cuts.

If the money is used to keep Californians on Medi-Cal, that could mean spending it on the private health insurance companies that the state contracts with to administer low-income residents’ coverage.

There is some debate over whether the money would actually offset the cuts to Medi-Cal and how strictly the language bars lawmakers from using the money for anything else.

Opponents such as the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood recently circulated a memo arguing there’s no guarantee the money would replace the federal funding cuts, because the proposition also allows the money to offset state cuts to Medi-Cal. They warn that would allow lawmakers and the governor to use the new tax money to maintain state funding levels for Medi-Cal and free up the state’s general fund to pay for other things.

Lawmakers and governors have in the past used special new funds to simply replace existing funding. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, did it with mental health funding created by a voter-approved tax on millionaires, and then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did it with health funding created by the state tobacco tax. More recently, doctors and hospitals accused Newsom of using a different healthcare tax to backfill the general fund. They placed Proposition 35 on the ballot in 2024 to earmark the money. Voters approved it, but the groups say some funding was still diverted.

But proponents of Prop. 40 said that concern doesn’t make sense: Those budget maneuvers, they said, are usually done to address state budget shortfalls, while Prop. 40 was already written to create funding for a shortfall.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

A medical helicopter transporting a patient crashed off Catalina Island, killing two people and leaving two hospitalized, authorities said Thursday.

Rescuers continued searching Thursday for a fifth person who was aboard the aircraft and went missing after the Wednesday night crash.

The Coast Guard, area firefighters and divers with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department were among emergency personnel who worked through the night, Coast Guard Capt. Stacey Crecy said at a news conference.

“We’re still doing an active search for the person who’s missing and then in addition to that, the divers and the remote operated vehicle are going to get a look at more of the wreckage and hopefully if there’s a sunken fuselage … we’re hoping to get a better picture of that this morning,” Crecy said.

The cause of the crash was not immediately clear. Crecy said the helicopter went down shortly after takeoff and hit the water a short distance from the island.

Authorities were working on identifying the victims, she said.

“We believe that the medical aircraft was transporting a person off the island for additional medical care on the mainland,” Crecy said, adding she did not have more information on the transport or the patient.

First responders were called to the crash shortly before 8 p.m. Wednesday and pulled four people from the water. Two were pronounced dead at the scene and two were brought in stable condition to hospitals on the mainland, the Los Angeles County Fire Department said.

Firefighters on the island were able to get to the scene quickly by boat, Crecy said.

The National Transportation Safety Board said it is investigating and identified the helicopter as a Eurocopter EC-135-P2.

Authorities said the helicopter was submerged in 240 feet (73 meters) of water off Catalina, which is located about 22 miles (35 kilometers) off the mainland of Los Angeles County.

The helicopter was believed to be operated by REACH Air Medical Services of Sacramento, California, KTLA-TV reported. A spokesperson for its parent company, Global Medical Response, told the station that it was aware of the accident and was gathering information.

Global Medical Response did not immediately return a message seeking comment Thursday morning.

Californians watching Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate would be forgiven for thinking the candidates for governor are President Donald Trump and the Democratic Party.

Trump was the central topic in the debate between Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, with Becerra repeatedly tying Hilton to Trump’s policies on immigration, taxes, housing, the environment and Big Tech. Hilton also tried to tie Becerra to outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats at large, whom Hilton blames for business and housing regulations that contribute to high costs.

Becerra mentioned the president, who is widely unpopular in California, more than a dozen times during the hourlong debate on CNN.

“You’re going to end up with Trump results if you follow Steve Hilton’s plans,” Becerra said when asked about Hilton’s proposal to eliminate income taxes for middle-class Californians. He pointed out that Hilton’s plan to drop income taxes on the first $150,000 in earnings also includes a tax cut for the state’s wealthiest earners, comparing it to federal tax cuts enacted by Trump.

Similarly, when Hilton said he would wait to assess whether California needs to more aggressively regulate artificial intelligence companies, Becerra linked his response to Trump’s inaction, saying “if you listen closely, you can hear Donald Trump in that response.”

Becerra also said he would impose limits on AI data centers in communities that oppose them. Hilton noted that Becerra’s campaign has received donations from the biggest artificial intelligence companies, Anthropic and OpenAI.

Trump endorsed Hilton during the contested primary election, but the former Fox News host has since tried to distance himself from both the president and the Republican Party, running ads telling voters they can dislike Trump and still support him. Last week, in an acknowledgement that opposition to Trump is dragging down Republicans’ approval rating, Hilton's campaign released a poll claiming he was “unscathed from (the) Republican collapse.”

On Hilton’s proposal to expand oil drilling in California, Becerra brought up Trump’s effort to expand drilling off the state’s coast.

On homelessness, Hilton noted Becerra once graded Newsom an “A for effort” on the issue despite homelessness increasing during his terms, while Becerra countered that Trump has blocked federal funding for local homelessness agencies.

It’s a predictable strategy for Becerra, who enjoys a double-digit lead over Hilton in the heavily Democratic-leaning state where voters also disapprove of Trump by wide margins. The Democratic candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary has laid low since getting the most votes in the crowded all-party primary election in June, making few public appearances and agreeing only to one debate. Hilton criticized Becerra for repeatedly mentioning national politics, arguing the Democrat isn’t offering Californians any concrete solutions to the nation-topping cost of living.

“All you ever say is ‘Trump, Trump, Trump,’” Hilton said. “And that’s nothing but an insult to every Californian who is desperate for something to change in this state.”

The candidates traded insults throughout the night. Hilton cited reports that Becerra’s colleagues in President Joe Biden’s cabinet had “described (Becerra) as an idiot.”

Then, in several testy exchanges over immigration, Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants, tied Hilton to Trump’s aggressive nationwide immigration raids and mass deportation campaign.

“You seem to welcome immigrants who look like you, but deport immigrants who look like me,” Becerra said. Hilton, a British immigrant and former adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron, bristled at the comment, calling it “disgraceful.”

Hilton praised the deportation campaign last January as “perfect” during an appearance on Fox News. He has previously described himself as “pro-immigration.” On Wednesday night, he dodged questions on whether he would undo the state’s sanctuary law limiting police cooperation with immigration agents and direct California officers to assist in Trump’s campaign.

Instead, he said, he would prefer to “turn down the temperature” on that debate.

The candidates argued over the best way to increase housing construction.

Hilton wants to build 10 new cities and allow more new construction on undeveloped land to avoid battles between the state and residents and local governments that are resistant to new development.

“We have got so much space that we could be building in,” he said.

Becerra said to address the housing crisis, he would reduce administrative and bureaucratic hurdles to getting construction permits, boost down payment assistance programs and stop Wall Street investors from competing with would-be homeowners. He pointed to the lawsuit he filed as state attorney general against the city of Huntington Beach to force it to approve new housing.

“No locality should have the right to try to stop all of our people in California from having the housing they need,” Becerra said.

They found common ground on how to keep the film industry in California amid competition from other states and countries. Los Angeles County has lost about 50,000 film and TV jobs since 2022. But while both candidates support expanding the state’s film tax credit to lower the cost of producing in California, they still each got in a dig over who to blame.

“Who’s been in charge when all those jobs have gone?” Hilton said.

“Donald Trump,” Becerra said.

“The Democrats,” Hilton said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.