As top executives who share a leadership post, Unite Here Local 11 co-presidents Ada Briceño, Susan Minato and Kurt Petersen aim to present a united front as they steer the politically powerful union representing more than 32,000 hotel workers across Southern California and Arizona.

Last year, they showed their solidarity: in handcuffs.

The three were arrested together — and not for the first time — during a protest in the run-up to the Southern California hotel strike, the largest in U.S. history. The strike, which started in early July, involved more than 15,000 hospitality workers at some 60 properties in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

The trio’s mutual support that day was more than a public pose; it’s a core precept of their unique power-sharing arrangement, believed to be the first of its kind at a U.S. labor union.

Discover the change-makers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Connectors, who understand that power doesn’t travel in a straight line and know how to connect the dots. Come back each Sunday for another installment.

One might assume that three people at the helm would butt heads from time to time. But that’s not the case, the co-presidents said.

“In case of a controversial decision, two could outvote the one, but I can’t think of the last time that actually happened,” Petersen said.

“We have never not had full consensus,” Minato said. “The good thing about the compatibility and the trust is that it really, truly enables you to do more.”

Briceño, 51, Minato, 62, and Petersen, 58, who met in the 1990s as young organizers, divide their responsibilities loosely, in accordance with the situation.

At rallies, all can usually be found among the sea of Unite Here red shirts and trading off at the podium, delivering fiery remarks in English and Spanish — in Petersen’s case, in Spanish with a heavy American accent that staff and members find endearing.

Minato often takes point on organizing food service workers, such as those at Universal Studios or airline catering companies, while Petersen heads up hotels and Briceño largely focuses on Orange County and elected officials. But the designations are informal and so loose as to be nonexistent at times. During the hotel strike, it’s been all hands on deck, they said.

Unite Here Local 11 has fused labor and political power with significant results.

The more than 10-month-old strike now appears to be nearing its end, with dozens of hotels agreeing to immediate raises of $5 per hour for front desk clerks, dishwashers and housekeepers.

In November, the union won a deal with the Los Angeles City Council for an ordinance aimed at reducing the city’s housing shortage in exchange for dropping a ballot measure that would have required hotels to participate in a city program to put homeless residents in vacant hotel rooms.

In 2022, Unite Here Local 11 persuaded politicians to reduce workloads for Los Angeles hotel employees, and, in 2021, to raise the minimum wage for West Hollywood hotel workers. In 2018, Long Beach voters approved a union-backed measure requiring hotels to provide panic buttons for workers.

The union has had losses too. Unite Here Local 11 gathered enough signatures to force a special election in Anaheim on whether to raise the city’s minimum wage for hotel and event center workers to $25. In October, voters overwhelmingly rejected the measure.

“We’re shocking people. We’re shocking the bosses,” Briceño said, “because the voices of our workers is what’s front and center for us.”

Dear Liz: I recently found out that my ex lent one of her former bosses $2,500 to get his brother out of jail on bond. My ex took the money out of a joint account that I had opened with the inheritance I got when my dad died. It’s now been four years and I haven’t received a penny of the loan back. I could really use the money now as I have medical bills to pay. Question is who do I go after? My ex or the boss?

Answer: You may have read in this column that inheritances can be kept as separate property, even in community property states where other assets acquired during marriage are generally considered jointly owned.

An inheritance can lose its status as separate property, however, if it’s commingled with joint funds. That’s what you did when you opened a joint account with the money: You gave your ex access to the funds.

You certainly can ask the ex and the boss to give the money back. You could try small claims court if that doesn’t work. You also could hire an attorney, but the costs of trying to get the loan repaid may well exceed the amount at stake.

My parents cut my kid out of their will. (Ouch!) Can I give her some cash?

Dear Liz: My parents wrote my youngest daughter out of their will (my other children were left in). As both parents are now gone, I am in the process of settling the estate. I feel horrible that my parents did this. My daughter is very upset with me and her siblings for not sharing the inheritance. I am under the impression that there is nothing we can do about the will. Having said that, I would like to give my daughter a good amount of money but I believe I can’t give more than $18,000 a year. Am I correct in my two assumptions?

Answer: Yes and no.

Yes, as the executor of the estate, you’re bound to carry out your parents’ wishes as expressed in their estate planning documents.

But no, there’s no limit to how much money you can give someone. Gifts over a certain size — which is $18,000 this year — have to be reported to the IRS. But you won’t owe gift taxes until the amounts you give away over the annual limit exceed your lifetime limit, which is currently $13.61 million.

That said, a large enough gift could have an impact on your own estate. Consider getting advice from your estate planning attorney before you proceed.

Is getting old reason enough to cancel some credit cards?

Dear Liz: Recently, someone asked if closing a credit card would be worth the hassle and you responded that there is no compelling reason to do so and in fact, it might hurt your credit scores. As an older person, I can think of two good reasons: theft and fraud. Many of us of a certain age no longer carry a mortgage or other debt. But, I am finding it harder to keep track of my finances. I would like to cancel three of my five credit cards for that reason.

Answer: You misquoted my response. What I actually wrote was, “If there’s no compelling reason to close a card, you might consider leaving the account open and using the card occasionally to prevent the issuer from closing it.”

Wanting to reduce your risk is reason enough to close a card account. All of us would be smart to consider simplifying our finances as we get older, says Carolyn McClanahan, a certified financial planner and physician in Jacksonville, Fla.

You also might think about who could help you manage your finances as the task gets more difficult. A legal document called a power of attorney allows you to name a trusted person to take over should you become incapacitated. You can familiarize this person with your finances and consider giving them online access to your accounts so they can help you spot fraud, theft or missed due dates. Involving them now, when you can help guide them, is generally better than waiting for a crisis and hoping they can figure everything out on their own.

Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon Blvd., No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.

Oil and gas companies are asking the Supreme Court to block dozens of high-powered lawsuits from California to Massachusetts seeking to hold the industry liable for billions of dollars in costs related to climate change.

They are urging the justices to intervene now and rule that climate change is a global phenomenon and a matter for federal law, not one suited to state-by-state claims.

“The stakes could not be higher,” companies said in an appeal that comes before the court on Thursday. “Over two dozen cases have been filed by various states and municipalities across the country seeking to impose untold damages on energy companies … and attempting to assert control over the nation’s energy policies …. This court should put a stop to it.”

The climate change lawsuits at issue are patterned after the successful mass lawsuits filed by states and others against the tobacco industry over cigarettes and the pharmaceutical industry over opioids.

Cigarettes and opioids were sold legally, but the suits alleged that industry officials conspired to deceive the public and hide the true dangers of their highly profitable products.

Last September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sounded the same theme when they filed a lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court against five of the largest oil and gas companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP — and the American Petroleum Institute for what they described as a “decades-long campaign of deception” that created climate-related harms in California.

“For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us — covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” Newsom said in announcing the suit.

Bonta said the oil and gas companies “have privately known the truth for decades — that the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change — but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment …. It is time they pay to abate the harm they have caused.”

Under state law, plaintiffs can seek damages for broad and open-ended claims like a failure to warn of a danger, false advertising or creating a public nuisance. All three claims are cited in California’s lawsuit. Federal law, by contrast, is usually limited to damage claims that arise from a federal law.

The city and state officials suing the energy industry are determined to keep the climate change cases in state courts, while industry lawyers have fought hard — but so far unsuccessfully — to move them to federal jurisdiction.

Over the last four years, the justices have turned away procedural appeals from the energy industry seeking to transfer these cases from state to federal courts.

This week, however, the industry’s lawyers are asking the justices to decide the underlying question that affects all of them: Does federal law and the Clean Air Act override or preempt states and their courts from punishing the oil industry for the harm caused by greenhouse gases?

“This is the end game for the oil companies,” said Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at the Vermont Law School. “They want to get this in front of the conservative Supreme Court. It’s an attempt to knock out all of these cases.”

Los Angeles lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents Chevron, said the pending lawsuits are based on an “outlandish” legal theory rooted in false advertising claims, rather than on the underlying greenhouse gas emissions.

“It is extremely important for the Supreme Court to grant review now,” he said. “Global climate change requires a coordinated international policy response, not the unleashing of dozens of baseless local lawsuits that could wreak havoc on federal energy policy and go on for years, even if they are ultimately doomed to failure.”

If the court votes to hear the cases, Sunoco vs. City of Honolulu and Shell vs. Honolulu, it will be a victory for the energy industry and a sign that the justices are likely to block the climate change lawsuits. The justices would hear arguments in the fall.

If the appeals are turned down, however, even more cities and states will be encouraged to file claims of their own and seek billions in damages from the fossil fuel industries.

The case under appeal began four years ago when the city and county of Honolulu sued Sunoco and 14 other major oil and gas producers alleging a failure to warn and creating a nuisance.

The Hawaii Supreme Court last year refused to dismiss the case.

“Simply put, the plaintiffs say the issue is whether defendants misled the public about fossil fuels’ dangers and environmental impact. We agree …. This suit does not seek to regulate emissions and does not seek damages for interstate emissions,” the state court said in a unanimous opinion. “Rather, plaintiffs’ complaint clearly seeks to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil-fuel products without warning and abetted by a sophisticated disinformation campaign.”

The issue has divided the red and blue states.

At an early of stage of the Sunoco case, California joined with 12 other Democratic-leaning states in urging the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the suit in Hawaii state court. They argued the case was about protecting consumers from “deceptive conduct,” which is “an area traditionally regulated by the states.”

When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama and 19 other Republican-led states filed a friend-of-the court brief on the side of the oil companies.

They argued that Hawaii and its courts do not have “power to enact disastrous global energy policies via state tort law … and imperil access to affordable energy.”

Separately, Alabama filed an unusual motion in May asking the Supreme Court to allow an “original” claim to raise the same issue. Typically, original claims arise from state disputes over boundaries or river water. Legal experts doubted the court would grant such a claim.

Lawyers for Honolulu urged the court to stand aside for now and wait, likely for several years, until there is a final verdict in its lawsuit.

The justices could announce by mid-June whether they will take up the climate change cases.