As you shop for back-to-school supplies for your kids or food for a Labor Day cookout, consider this: The clerks, shelf stockers, truck drivers, and factory workers who make that possible may be working under a threat: pay union dues or else be fired.

Why? Because California is one of the 24 forced-unionism states in the country. In your state, union officials enjoy a special privilege that allows them to legally threaten a worker to pay up or be terminated. By imposing a monopoly bargaining contract, all California employees in a unionized workplace, even those who reject union membership, can be subjected to mandatory dues.

If you think this sounds unjust, you’re hardly alone. Poll after poll consistently demonstrates that 8 in 10 Americans agree that it’s wrong to subject workers to this kind of union coercion. A new survey out from Rasmussen Media Group echoes this support, showing over 80% of Americans and even 79% of current union membersbelieve union dues should not be compulsory.

Fortunately, all public employees have enjoyed First Amendment protection against being compelled to make union payments as a job condition since the 2018 landmark US Supreme Court Janus v AFSCME decision, argued and won by National Right to Work Foundation attorneys. However, private sector workforces in forced-unionism states like California can still be forced to give money to union officials to keep their jobs.

While that’s just plain wrong, coercing workers into subsidizing union officials also holds back a state’s economy.

A National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR) report, drawing on data from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that the number of individuals employed from 2013 to 2023 grew nearly twice as fast in Right to Work states as in forced-unionism states: 16% in Right to Work states versus only 8.3% in states that allow workers to be fired for refusing to pay union bosses.

The NILRR analysis also found that the cost of living-adjusted disposable per capita income advantage for Right to Work states is equivalent to more than $11,000 a year for a family of four.

The economic data speaks for itself.

Right to Work laws do not outlaw labor unions, and they do not prevent any workers from joining a labor union if they choose. Right to Work laws simply codify one commonsense principle: Every worker should have the choice to join a labor union, but no worker should be forced to pay fees to a union as a condition of employment.

Right to Work laws also encourage more flexible and responsive union officials in the workplace. When workers cannot simply be forced to pay dues under threat of termination, union brass must work harder to retain employee support. This incentivizes union officials to put workers’ interests first, rather than promoting their own power or pushing an agenda that is out of step with the rank-and-file.

On Labor Day, take a moment to reflect on the benefits that Right to Work brings to workers across the nation, and the difference it could make for California. Right to Work could mean more individual freedom and economic opportunity for you and your family. It’s working in Right to Work states across the country.

Help make California a Right to Work state. Demand your elected officials embrace the economic opportunity and worker freedom that Right to Work would bring.

Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee and National Right to Work Foundation

Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers in 2020 touted a law to create a “first in the nation” state task force to study and propose remedies to atone for the legacy of slavery.

Four years later, their work to deliver reparations is more incremental than recording-breaking, stoking frustration among advocates who filled the Capitol as lawmakers cast their final votes of the legislative session on Saturday.

Hamstrung by a state budget deficit and the challenges of supporting a politically volatile issue in an election year, the California Legislature passed a limited slate of reparations bills. The meager progress, though hailed by some lawmakers and advocates, in a state as liberal as California could serve as a warning on the issue to the rest of the nation.

“I think what it demonstrates is that when the rubber hits the road, Democrats are still unwilling and unable and uninterested in truly supporting these efforts outside of sort of symbolic and less than substantive ways,” said Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the UMass poll.

The California Legislative Black Caucus announced 14 priority reparations bills in January based on recommendations made last year by the reparations task force. Lawmakers cast the legislation as a first step focused largely on enacting policy changes in education, healthcare and criminal justice, while omitting cash payments in light of the state’s financial troubles.

Lawmakers passed 10 bills in the package before they adjourned Saturday, including marquee legislation requiring a formal apology from the state for “perpetuating the harms African Americans faced by having imbued racial prejudice through segregation, public and private discrimination, and unequal disbursal of state and federal funding and [declaring] that such actions shall not be repeated.”

The Legislature placed a measure on the November ballot that asks voters to delete language in the California Constitution that allows involuntary servitude as a form of punishment for crimes. Another bill would end a work requirement for able-bodied state prisoners and instead develop a voluntary work program if the ballot measure banning involuntary servitude is approved.

Other bills establish a process for the state to review and investigate claims of racially motivated taking of property by governments using the power of eminent domain, seek to increase and track participation in career training education among Black and low-income students, and expand Medi-Cal coverage, pending federal approval, to include benefits for medically supported food and nutrition.

The legislation now on Newsom’s desk also includes new oversight of book bans in California prisons, a requirement that grocery stores and pharmacies give written notice at least 45 days before closing and the expansion of a state law prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle to include youth sports.

Bills faltered in the Legislature that sought to restrict solitary confinement in prisons, to prioritize African American descendants of people who were enslaved in the United States for state licenses and to establish grants to fund local efforts to decrease violence in Black communities. A proposal to amend the state constitution to allow funding for programs that increase life expectancy, improve educational outcomes and alleviate poverty among certain racial and ethnic groups of people also failed.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), who leads the Legislative Black Caucus, said that work on reparations will continue next year and that the successful bills marked an important first step.

“It was definitely intentional to start laying a foundation,” she said. “We look forward to building on top of that and being able to really engage the community on the work that we’re doing.”

Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), who introduced the bill to begin the process of reversing racially motivated land and property seizures in the reparations package, pushed two additional bills that failed when the Legislature refused to take them up for a final vote: to create a California American Freedmen Affairs Agency and to establish a Fund for Reparations and Reparative Justice to pay for and carry out reparations policies approved by lawmakers. Neither was included on the Black caucus’ priority list.

As the bills languished in the Assembly on Saturday, reparations advocates gathered in the Capitol Rotunda to lobby lawmakers.

“Bring the bills up!” they shouted every time an Assembly member emerged from the chamber.

Chris Lodgson, wearing a cap embroidered with the words “Cut the check,” said the bills that passed do not represent a meaningful change.

“An apology is not reparations. Extending the Crown Act [to prohibit discrimination against Black hairstyles], that’s not no damn reparations. Passing a bill so that people could read the books that they want to read, that’s not no damn reparations,” he said.

“The only bills to actually let us even do reparations are the bills that they’re scared to bring up.”

Bradford said the bills’ failure was the biggest disappointment of his 14-year career in the Legislature, which came to an end Saturday.

“I think this was the time to strike. The nation’s watching, and I think we owe it to not only African Americans here in California, but across this nation, to set a fine example,” he said. “I”m saddened by it.”

The legislation put forward by the Black caucus was based on recommendations from California’s reparations task force at the conclusion of a historic two-year process last summer to study the effects of slavery, to prove the ways in which government continues to discriminate against Black people and to suggest policy changes to state lawmakers.

The sweeping wish list of reforms included politically challenging proposals to provide cash payments, abolish the death penalty in California and offer free college tuition to eligible descendants, among dozens of other ideas.

Direct financial compensation has become a particularly fraught issue, one sought by activists but opposed by most of the general public.

Newsom, who signed the law that set the reparations movement in motion in California, has yet to endorse the notion of the state providing cash payments to descendants of African Americans who were enslaved. The governor, task force members and lawmakers have repeated the idea that reparations are about more than cash.

A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in 2023, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 59% of California voters oppose cash payments compared with 28% who support the idea. More than 4 in 10 voters “strongly” opposed cash payments.

A national UMass poll conducted in January found opposition to the federal government providing cash payments at 67%, compared with 34% who said it definitely or probably should pay descendants. Among those against the idea, 29% said their reason was because descendants do not deserve the money.

Nteta said California’s work to investigate and show evidence of the systemic ways in which racial identification has affected the Black community exceeds the federal government’s efforts to detail and trace the impact of slavery. But there’s an inherent tension between advocates who want to apply pressure to enact change now and legislators who recognize that pushing the unpopular idea too hard and failing could be “the death knell for reparations as a policy.”

The nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris, a Black woman and a Californian, as the Democratic presidential candidate adds another level of complexity to the politics of reparations.

Nteta said Republicans mobilize white voters, either directly or implicitly, by suggesting Democratic candidates will improve life for Black Americans and people of color in a way that adversely affects white people.

“When Harris starts to talk about reparations and define herself, there’s a high likelihood that will then be used as a means by which to run ads to demonstrate that she is going to, if elected, disproportionately support the African American community,” Nteta said. “So, her racial identity and her partisan identity intertwining is actually bad news for the notion of a potential president speaking about reparations, or even doing anything on reparations. There’s a lot of political backlash that is going to happen if this is something that she articulates an opinion on.”

Democrats, including those who support reparations, are also unlikely to push her to talk about a controversial subject if it could hurt her chances of beating former President Trump, he said. Harris supported the idea of studying the generational effect of discrimination and institutional racism in order to consider potential interventions before the Democratic primary in her failed bid for the presidency in the 2020 election.

Any action taken in the Golden State could also be pinned on Harris. Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, criticize her as a “left-leaning progressive Californian from San Francisco” to suggest she’s out of touch with America, Nteta said.

“The California Legislature passing a reparations bill would be just like manna from heaven for the Republican Party and for Donald Trump to demonstrate and make the case that this is what the future would look like under a president from California that cut her teeth in a state and has those overarching ideals,” Nteta said. “So it makes sense that there would be very few sort of revolutionary or extremely progressive policies that come out before the fall election.”

California public schools could soon be banned from serving certain artificial dyes in food over concerns about developmental harm in children.

Dubbed a “first-in-the-nation” measure, state lawmakers this week passed Assembly Bill 2316 to prohibit six additives that are permitted by federal regulators to make food more colorful. California’s AB 2316, known as the California School Food Safety Act, is now on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The bill says state research suggests such synthetic dyes can result in hyperactivity and other behavioral problems. Similar previous research prompted the European Union to restrict food coloring. Nearly all of the products that the California bill would ban in schools require warning labels in E.U. products.

The bill would ban commercial dyes of Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, in public schools in the nation’s largest state.

“California has a responsibility to protect our students from chemicals that harm children and interfere with their ability to learn,” state Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat who authored the bill, said in a statement. He said that he struggled with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, and he is now a parent.

On Saturday, a spokesperson said Newsom’s office didn’t comment on pending legislation. The deadline for Newsom to sign or veto legislation is Sept. 30, the spokesperson said.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group and the California Medical Association, which represents doctors, supported the bill.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals for the dyes banned under AB 2316 date back decades, the environmental nonprofit said. Those approvals were based on old studies not designed to detect behavioral effects in children, the medical association had said in its support of AB 2316.

The Consumer Brands Association, a dye industry representative, opposed the bill because it overrode existing food safety rules, and the group disputed findings about adverse health effects. John Hewlitt, the association’s senior vice president of packaging, sustainability and state affairs, said the bill was “advancing a political agenda.”

“The passage of this bill could cost schools and families money, limit choice and access, and create consumer confusion,” he said in a statement provided to USA TODAY. “The approach taken by California politicians flies in the face of our science and risk-based process and is not the precedent we should be setting when it comes to feeding our families.”

A 2021 state Environmental Protection Agency assessment found American youth diagnosed with ADHD increased in the last 20 years, which prompted the state to look at food dyes. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has similarly tracked increases in ADHD diagnoses in children in recent years.

Focusing on seven food dyes, including those that would be banned under AB 2316, state researchers reviewed prior studies on the effects of these dyes in humans and laboratory animals. Findings indicated they were linked to adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in children, and children varied in sensitivity.

On Friday, an FDA spokesperson told NBC News they had reviewed literature cited in California’s legislation. While saying most children have no “adverse effects” when they eat foods with color additives, the spokesperson reportedly said some evidence suggests certain children may be sensitive.

If signed into law, California’s ban would take effect in schools beginning in 2027.