Advocates say it is a modest law setting “clear, predictable, common-sense safety standards” for artificial intelligence. Opponents say it is a dangerous and arrogant step that will “stifle innovation.”
California
On Labor Day, consider the injustice of forced union dues in California
![On Labor Day, consider the injustice of forced union dues in California On Labor Day, consider the injustice of forced union dues in California](https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OCR-Z-UNIONS-CALIFORNIA.jpg?w=1024&h=683)
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
![](https://newspub.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/np-logo.png)
California
California Democrats talked a big game on reparations. They're off to slow start
![California Democrats talked a big game on reparations. They're off to slow start California Democrats talked a big game on reparations. They're off to slow start](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/1775e66/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4032x2117+0+454/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc2%2F15%2F9df71ec74b358c6b8f0cc765df37%2Freparations-capital.jpg)
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
Some artificial dyes could be banned from California schools
![Some artificial dyes could be banned from California schools Some artificial dyes could be banned from California schools](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/authoring/authoring-images/2024/08/31/USAT/75032936007-usatsi-24090018.jpg?auto=webp&crop=4175,2349,x0,y0&format=pjpg&width=1200)
Psychologist provides simple tips to manage ADHD and symptoms
Dr. Ali Mattu explains how efforts like making checklists or being physically active can help manage ADHD.
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.
California
California’s governor has the chance to make AI history
![California’s governor has the chance to make AI history California’s governor has the chance to make AI history](https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/gettyimages-2161013764_474f9c.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C10.752616398754%2C100%2C78.494767202492&w=1200)
In any event, SB 1047 — California state Sen. Scott Wiener’s proposal to regulate advanced AI models offered by companies doing business in the state — has now passed the California State Assembly by a margin of 48 to 16. Back in May, it passed the Senate by 32 to 1. Once the Senate agrees to the assembly’s changes to the bill, which it is expected to do shortly, the measure goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
The bill, which would hold AI companies liable for catastrophic harms their “frontier” models may cause, is backed by a wide array of AI safety groups, as well as luminaries in the field like Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, and Stuart Russell, who have warned of the technology’s potential to pose massive, even existential dangers to humankind. It got a surprise last-minute endorsement from Elon Musk, who among his other ventures runs the AI firm xAI.
Lined up against SB 1047 is nearly all of the tech industry, including OpenAI, Facebook, the powerful investors Y Combinator and Andreessen Horowitz, and some academic researchers who fear it threatens open source AI models. Anthropic, another AI heavyweight, lobbied to water down the bill. After many of its proposed amendments were adopted in August, the company said the bill’s “benefits likely outweigh its costs.”
Despite the industry backlash, the bill seems to be popular with Californians, though all surveys on it have been funded by interested parties. A recent poll by the pro-bill AI Policy Institute found 70 percent of residents in favor, with even higher approval ratings among Californians working in tech. The California Chamber of Commerce commissioned a bill finding a plurality of Californians opposed, but the poll’s wording was slanted, to say the least, describing the bill as requiring developers to “pay tens of millions of dollars in fines if they don’t implement orders from state bureaucrats.” The AI Policy Institute’s poll presented pro and con arguments, but the California Chamber of Commerce only bothered with a “con” argument.
The wide, bipartisan margins by which the bill passed the Assembly and Senate, and the public’s general support (when not asked in a biased way), might suggest that Gov. Newsom is likely to sign. But it’s not so simple. Andreessen Horowitz, the $43 billion venture capital giant, has hired Newsom’s close friend and Democratic operative Jason Kinney to lobby against the bill, and a number of powerful Democrats, including eight members of the US House from California and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have urged a veto, echoing talking points from the tech industry.
So there’s a strong chance that Newsom will veto the bill, keeping California — the center of the AI industry — from becoming the first state with robust AI liability rules. At stake is not just AI safety in California, but also in the US and potentially the world.
To have attracted all of this intense lobbying, one might think that SB 1047 is an aggressive, heavy-handed bill — but, especially after several rounds of revisions in the State Assembly, the actual law does fairly little.
It would offer whistleblower protections to tech workers, along with a process for people who have confidential information about risky behavior at an AI lab to take their complaint to the state Attorney General without fear of prosecution. It also requires AI companies that spend more than $100 million to train an AI model to develop safety plans. (The extraordinarily high ceiling for this requirement to kick in is meant to protect California’s startup industry, which objected that the compliance burden would be too high for small companies.)
So what about this bill would possibly prompt months of hysteria, intense lobbying from the California business community, and unprecedented intervention by California’s federal representatives? Part of the answer is that the bill used to be stronger. The initial version of the law set the threshold for compliance at $100 million for the use of a certain amount of computing power, meaning that over time, more companies would have become subject to the law as computers continue to get cheaper. It would also have established a state agency called the “Frontier Models Division” to review safety plans; the industry objected to the perceived power grab.
Another part of the answer is that a lot of people were falsely told the bill does more. One prominent critic inaccurately claimed that AI developers could be guilty of a felony, regardless of whether they were involved in a harmful incident, when the bill only had provisions for criminal liability in the event that the developer knowingly lied under oath. (Those provisions were subsequently removed anyway). Congressional representative Zoe Lofgren of the science, space, and technology committee wrote a letter in opposition falsely claiming that the bill requires adherence to guidance that doesn’t exist yet.
But the standards do exist (you can read them in full here), and the bill does not require firms to adhere to them. It says only that “a developer shall consider industry best practices and applicable guidance” from the US Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute, National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Government Operations Agency, and other reputable organizations.
A lot of the discussion of SB 1047 unfortunately centered around straightforwardly incorrect claims like these, in many cases propounded by people who should have known better.
SB 1047 is premised on the idea that near-future AI systems might be extraordinarily powerful, that they accordingly might be dangerous, and that some oversight is required. That core proposition is extraordinarily controversial among AI researchers. Nothing exemplifies the split more than the three men frequently called the “godfathers of machine learning,” Turing Award winners Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun. Bengio — a Future Perfect 2023 honoree — and Hinton have both in the last few years become convinced that the technology they created may kill us all and argued for regulation and oversight. Hinton stepped down from Google in 2023 to speak openly about his fears.
LeCun, who is chief AI scientist at Meta, has taken the opposite tack, declaring that such worries are nonsensical science fiction and that any regulation would strangle innovation. Where Bengio and Hinton find themselves supporting the bill, LeCun opposes it, especially the idea that AI companies should face liability if AI is used in a mass casualty event.
In this sense, SB 1047 is the center of a symbolic tug-of-war: Does government take AI safety concerns seriously, or not? The actual text of the bill may be limited, but to the extent that it suggests government is listening to the half of experts that think that AI might be extraordinarily dangerous, the implications are big.
It’s that sentiment that has likely driven some of the fiercest lobbying against the bill by venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, whose firm a16z has been working relentlessly to kill the bill, and some of the highly unusual outreach to federal legislators to demand they oppose a state bill. More mundane politics likely plays a role, too: Politico reported that Pelosi opposed the bill because she’s trying to court tech VCs for her daughter, who is likely to run against Scott Wiener for a House of Representatives seat.)
Why SB 1047 is so important
It might seem strange that legislation in just one US state has so many people wringing their hands. But remember: California is not just any state. It’s where several of the world’s leading AI companies are based.
And what happens there is especially important because, at the federal level, lawmakers have been dragging out the process of regulating AI. Between Washington’s hesitation and the looming election, it’s falling to states to pass new laws. The California bill, if Newsom gives it the green light, would be one big piece of that puzzle, setting the direction for the US more broadly.
The rest of the world is watching, too. “Countries around the world are looking at these drafts for ideas that can influence their decisions on AI laws,” Victoria Espinel, the chief executive of the Business Software Alliance, a lobbying group representing major software companies, told the New York Times in June.
Even China — often invoked as the boogeyman in American conversations about AI development (because “we don’t want to lose an arms race with China”) — is showing signs of caring about safety, not just wanting to run ahead. Bills like SB 1047 could telegraph to others that Americans also care about safety.
Frankly, it’s refreshing to see legislators wise up to the tech world’s favorite gambit: claiming that it can regulate itself. That claim may have held sway in the era of social media, but it’s become increasingly untenable. We need to regulate Big Tech. That means not just carrots, but sticks, too.
Newsom has the opportunity to do something historic. And if he doesn’t? Well, he’ll face some sticks of his own. The AI Policy Institute’s poll shows that 60 percent of voters are prepared to blame him for future AI-related incidents if he vetoes SB 1047. In fact, they’d punish him at the ballot box if he runs for higher office: 40 percent of California voters say they would be less likely to vote for Newsom in a future presidential primary election if he vetoes the bill.
-
Connecticut1 week ago
Oxford church provides sanctuary during Sunday's damaging storm
-
Politics1 week ago
2024 showdown: What happens next in the Kamala Harris-Donald Trump face-off
-
News1 week ago
Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?
-
Politics1 week ago
Vivek Ramaswamy sounds off on potential RFK Jr. role in a Trump administration
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taunted over speculated RFK Jr endorsement: 'Weird as hell'
-
World7 days ago
Portugal coast hit by 5.3 magnitude earthquake
-
Politics1 week ago
With 13 days until voting starts, 'election season' kicks off sooner than you think
-
Politics7 days ago
Why won't Pennsylvania voters have results on Election Night?