Business
In scramble to protect workers against heat, California officials exclude prisons from new rules
After last-minute objections from state officials thwarted plans to implement protections for workers in hot warehouses and other indoor facilities, California’s workplace safety agency is trying again to adopt the measures before the summer heat arrives.
At a March 21 meeting, the state board overseeing workplace safety standards was primed to approve the landmark regulations. Shortly before the start of the meeting, however, officials from the state’s Finance Department, which must sign off on new workplace rules, intervened. They raised concerns about the costs that California prisons and other public entities would incur trying to adhere to the new rules, saying the price tag for cooling correctional facilities could run “in the neighborhood of billions of dollars.”
Now, California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal/OSHA, said it will revise the proposed indoor heat rule to exclude state and local correctional facilities — an amendment that would appear to clear a path for approval of the rules in coming weeks.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, indicated the department supported the move.
“I don’t want to get ahead of our staff’s review, but given that it excludes correctional facilities, it would appear to address the issues that we had,” he said.
The announcement that correctional facilities will be carved out from the rule was made by the agency’s standards board Thursday and came amid considerable pressure from labor groups to get protections in place for their members.
“We are hopeful this will create a path for protections this summer but will not stop advocating until it is accomplished,” said Lorena Gonzalez, head of the California Labor Federation.
The federation and scores of regional unions and other workers groups sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 1 urging him to “act immediately” to approve the rule.
“With the swipe of a pen, the State of California can easily prevent workplace injuries and deaths brought on by indoor heat,” the letter read. “Summer is coming, and time is a luxury that workers cannot afford.”
Under the proposed indoor heat rule, employers would have to provide cooling areas and monitor workers taking breaks to cool down for signs of heat illness when temperatures inside reach or surpass 82 degrees.
If temperatures climb to 87 degrees, or workers are made to work near hot equipment, employers would be mandated to take additional safety precautions to either cool the broader work site, allocate more breaks, rotate out workers or make other adjustments.
After the board’s aborted vote, the state blew past a procedural deadline to get sign-off from the Finance Department, leaving supporters of the new rules to worry that the approval process would have to start from scratch.
But Eric Berg, a Cal/OSHA deputy chief, said Thursday the agency had found a way to extend the deadline, giving it the time it needed to revise the rules to exempt prisons.
It is expected to take several weeks for the revised rules to be formally approved, Berg said.
He added that Cal/OSHA plans to propose separate rules that would spell out heat safety measures for workers in jails and prisons. Those rules must go through the lengthy approval process from the start, which could take months or years.
Gonzalez, of the California Labor Federation, said unions for workers at correctional facilities are working with the governor’s office to craft a proposal. She said public sector unions may look to implement safety rules earlier, through collective bargaining agreements.
The original indoor heat rule is nearly eight years in the making, stemming from a 2016 mandate by the California Legislature directing Cal/OSHA to develop heat safety regulations.
The need for indoor guidelines has become increasingly urgent as climate change makes heat waves and high temperatures more frequent and severe, experts say. Some warehouses, shipping centers, kitchens, schools and other workplaces can soar above 90 degrees.
“We need these regulations to be in place before the summer,” said Laura Stock, a board member reached by phone last month. “As we heard from the testimony of all the workers and organizations that were there, people are suffering from the impact of heat illness.”
Business
Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns
A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.
The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.
The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.
“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”
Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.
It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.
Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.
“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.
Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.
“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”
Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.
In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.
In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.
A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”
“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.
Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.
L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.
Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.
Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.
“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”
The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.
“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.
Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.
Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.
The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.
Business
Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
Business
Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
-
Politics1 minute agoVideo: Steve Hilton Holds Slim Early Lead in California Governor’s Race
-
Lifestyle31 minutes agoWe’re having a main character summer. Are you? : It’s Been a Minute
-
Technology39 minutes agoMicrosoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman says there are three labs that matter — and he wants Microsoft to be the fourth.
-
World46 minutes agoUS ally Kuwait condemns ‘brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks’ after airport was hit
-
Politics49 minutes agoSpencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass
-
Health54 minutes agoOne extra serving of processed meat a day linked to higher cancer risk
-
Sports1 hour agoAJ Brown trade outcome: Dianna Russini paid a heavy price while Mike Vrabel emerged unscathed
-
Technology1 hour agoCould your Samsung phone replace your passport?