The California Teachers Association traces its roots to 1863, when state schools chief John Swett organized the California Educational Society with 100 members, all of them men. Over time, that organization grew into the CTA, now a union representing more than 300,000 members and widely viewed as one of Sacramento’s most influential political forces.

Long before California public employees won collective bargaining rights about 50 years ago, the CTA had already built substantial power at the Capitol. Through member dues, the union has spent heavily on campaign contributions, lobbying and ballot measures that affect public education funding.

Its signature victory came in 1988 with the passage of Proposition 98, which created a constitutional funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges. The measure helped offset the erosion of local property tax revenue following Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that capped property tax increases.

Today, Proposition 98 remains central to every state budget negotiation. Each year, lawmakers and the governor first determine how much money the formula requires for schools and community colleges before dividing the rest of the state’s revenue among other programs. If school funding is reduced, the state is generally required to restore the money later.

But education is no longer the only major budget priority competing for dominance. Medi-Cal, California’s health coverage program for low-income residents, now serves about 14 million people — more than one-third of the state’s population.

California is spending nearly $200 billion on Medi-Cal in the current fiscal year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2026-27 budget would increase that amount to $217 billion. Most of the funding comes from the federal government, but the state’s share still totals roughly $50 billion, making Medi-Cal one of California’s largest commitments.

That has created growing tension as federal support declines and state leaders face pressure to fill the gap. Much of that pressure is coming from SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, a union that represents about 120,000 members and has become one of the CTA’s strongest rivals in Sacramento.

The conflict is rooted in a basic budget reality: more money for schools can mean less flexibility for health care, and vice versa, unless voters or lawmakers approve new taxes.

The rivalry is already visible in this year’s governor’s race. The Service Employees International Union, the parent organization of SEIU-UHW, is supporting former Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a leading Democratic candidate. The CTA is backing billionaire Tom Steyer, who has repeatedly promised to pursue a long-standing teachers union goal: changing Proposition 13 to remove commercial property tax limits, a move that could raise more money for schools.

The unions are also split over budget proposals, including how California pays for preschool. The state Senate’s budget plan would move preschool funding into the Proposition 98 portion of the budget, which could free up money for health care programs. The CTA opposes that approach, viewing it as a diversion of school funding.

Their largest fight, however, is headed for the ballot. SEIU-UHW is sponsoring a measure that would impose a 5% tax on the wealth of California’s roughly 200 billionaires, with nearly all of the revenue dedicated to supporting health care.

CTA leaders oppose being left out of a potential new stream of tax revenue. They also fear the health care measure could weaken support for their own proposed ballot initiative, which would make permanent a surtax on the incomes of California’s highest earners. Voters first approved that tax in 2012, and keeping it in place could preserve as much as $15 billion a year in revenue.

The dispute marks an unusual public divide between labor organizations that often share allies and policy goals. But as California’s budget pressures grow, the state’s two heavyweight unions are increasingly competing for the same dollars — and for the political power to decide where those dollars go.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Major Unions Battle Over Campaign Cash, Political Influence This Election Season appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, which would largely be used to offset federal funding cuts to healthcare for low-income people.

“California’s health is at stake,” said Liz Perlman, executive director of a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a major labor union. “Hospitals are closing and people will die. Why? So billionaires can get another tax cut that they don’t need.”

The California Secretary of State still has to verify the signatures and officially place the measure on the ballot. Backers say they collected more than 1.5 million signatures, well over the roughly 875,000 they needed. California allows ballot initiative campaigns to pay people per signature they gather. The cost of gathering petition signatures can vary widely, but it typically runs around $15 for each signature.

If the measure goes before voters in November, it could prompt one of the costliest ballot fights ever and will draw national attention as a litmus test for voter attitudes on raising taxes on the rich. An effort to oppose the tax has already raised millions and led to proposals designed to nullify the tax. Meanwhile, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has campaigned in support of the idea.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Silicon Valley tech moguls are adamantly opposed. They warn it will drive California’s wealthiest residents out of the state. Nearly half of California’s personal income tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. Some have already purchased properties out of state in case it passes.

“After playing with matches since October the SEIU has succeeded in lighting a ‘Tax the Rich’ wildfire by getting enough signatures,” said David Lesperance, a tax consultant who’s advised some of his wealthy clients who left California because of the proposal. “The many billionaire targets of their efforts have already responded by executing fire escape plans by relocating to other states.”

Brian Brokaw, a longtime Newsom adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said the measure was poorly constructed and would deal a huge blow to the state’s budget.

“Enacting a so-called wealth tax in just one state wouldn’t target a small group — it would impact all 40 million Californians,” he said in a statement. “This proposal trades a short-term revenue bump for long-term losses.”

At least 25 billionaires listed among Forbes magazine’s 2025 rankings of the world’s 500 wealthiest people either lived in California or had some significant ties to the state, based on a review by The Associated Press. But determining whether they were full-time residents or just frequent visitors could turn into a matter of dispute, since many of them own property elsewhere.

The big tax and spending cuts law President Donald Trump signed last year will cut more than $1 trillion nationwide over a decade from Medicaid and federal food assistance.

The post Billionaire tax proposal in California is on track to qualify for the ballot, backers say appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging California’s gig economy law Proposition 22 have made good on their promise to take the case to the state’s highest court.

The Service Employees International Union and a group of rideshare drivers on Friday petitioned the California Supreme Court to review a recent appeals court ruling that largely upheld the 2020 law, the union said.

Proposition 22, which has been in effect since December 2020, allows giant ride-hailing and delivery companies, including Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, to classify their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The companies spent upwards of $200 million funding the voter initiative in a move to legalize their business model. Californians approved the ballot measure with a clear majority. SEIU’s attorneys argue primarily that Proposition 22 unconstitutionally revokes the state legislature’s authority over California’s workers’ compensation system.

“Uber, Lyft and Doordash have used Prop. 22 to carve out gig workers from our state’s workers compensation system and deprive those same workers of paid sick leave, meaningful health care coverage, overtime pay and more,” said David Huerta, President of SEIU California and SEIU United Service Workers West in an emailed statement on Friday. SEIU, SEIU California and a handful of drivers first brought the lawsuit in January 2021.

They sought to take the case directly to the California Supreme Court, filing a petition for review that was quickly declined, but left open the option for plaintiffs to pursue the case in a lower court — which plaintiffs did. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch in August 2021 dealt a blow to gig companies with a ruling that deemed Proposition 22 unconstitutional and unenforceable.

An appeals court last month largely reversed the lower court ruling, upholding the law almost in its entirety. The union said it timed its petition with the first International Gig Workers Congress, a convening of drivers and delivery workers from across 15 countries scheduled in Los Angeles for Monday.

The California Gig Workers Union, a statewide gig worker group affiliated with union locals SEIU 721 and SEIU 1021 in Southern California and Northern California, respectively, organized the event and plans to hold rallies next week in downtown Los Angeles as well as outside Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco.

A coalition of gig companies that backs Proposition 22, Protect App-based Drivers & Services, celebrated the appeals court ruling last month and has said invalidating the law would infringe on voters direct democracy rights.

The California Supreme Court, once it receives a petition, has 60 days to decide whether to review the case, but can request a 30-day extension.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Labor union SEIU appeals Prop. 22 challenge to California Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.