LifeLong doctors, nurses and therapists strike across the East Bay
Health workers want higher wages and better working conditions while management says they’re limited by federal financial uncertainties.
…https://www.berkeleyside.org/2026/09/28/lifelong-medical-strike-east-bay-workers-rally-in-richmond
By Kleigh Carroll
Sept. 28, 2026, 4:58 p.m.

LifeLong employees on strike (from left): Berkeley nurse practitioner Lara Barth, Berkeley Dr. Sara Woolf and Richmond physician assistant Kendra Jacobson rallied in Richmond on Mon., Sept. 28, 2026. Workers want higher wages and better working conditions while management says they’re limited by federal financial uncertainties. Credit: Maurice Tierney for Richmondside
There's no paywall here because our reporting is free for all of Berkeley. Support from readers like you helps make it possible. Donate today to our fall campaign and your gift will be fully matched by some of our most generous supporters.
Dozens of doctors, nurses, therapists and other LifeLong healthcare workers from across the East Bay staged a one-day strike Monday, gathering for picketing and a rally in Richmond to protest what they say are unsustainable working conditions.

Wielding signs scribbled with phrases such as “Living Wage Now!,” “Our patients deserve better” and “Community health not executive wealth,” they marched around the Harbour Way facility chanting “Si, se puede!” — “Yes, we can” — a phrase popularized by farmworker labor organizer Dolores Huerta, as passing cars honked in support.

The strike by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists was announced Friday after LifeLong employees and managers were unable to come to an agreement over pay and working conditions.

A LifeLong representative said Friday that management offered employees a 6.38% wage increase over three years as well as bonuses and other benefits. The union was seeking a “double-digit” raise.

Patients at the William Jenkins Medical Center appeared to be able to access care and did not report significant scheduling issues. This is because many of the primary care physicians are residents (physicians in training) who were not on strike.

LifeLongStrike_092826_Mtierney.jpeg
LifeLong Dr. Julia Marino was among a number of physicians and other healthcare workers who walked a picket line Monday at William Jenkins Medical Center in Richmond. Credit: Maurice Tierney for Richmondside
“Usually, we are the ones precepting those residents, like supervising and signing off on the things that they do,” Dr. Julia Marino said. “They have some temporary people or people who are administrators, so not in the union, who are covering the residents. In that way, it has not been as disruptive here. But at other clinics, I think more so because they don’t have a bunch of residents who are seeing the patients.”

Richmond resident Shayla Barillas was there for an 11 a.m. appointment with her primary care physician and said she had no problem with scheduling. She was surprised to see the rally in progress when she arrived.

“I was surprised to see the wages and like, ‘No, you cannot live like that,’ ” Barillas said. “Of course I think they should be paid more fairly.”

Richmond resident Wayne Winrow has been a patient at the LifeLong clinic for a few years and said he has been seen by a different doctor at each visit. He was unaware of the issues LifeLong workers are facing.

“I didn’t know they were having that sort of problem,” Winrow said. “That’s too bad.”

LifeLongStrike_092826_Mtierney.jpeg
Patients who were surprised to see a strike happening at the William Jenkins Health Center in Richmond seemed supportive of the labor union. Their appointments weren’t disrupted because many of the physicians there are residents and therefore didn’t join the strike. Credit: Maurice Tierney for Richmondside
Marino and Dr. Sara Woolf, a Berkeley family physician, members of the UAPD bargaining team, said in addition to concerns about low wages they’re concerned about their workload.

“A lot of our colleagues are living paycheck to paycheck,” Marino said. “The reason we unionized in the first place is because we had an 11% attrition rate.”

The union has been at the bargaining table with LifeLong since December of last year. In 2023, when employees first unionized, they were unable to negotiate improvements in their contract with the medical nonprofit until they went on a one-day strike. This time around, according to Marino, LifeLong seems unwilling to meet their demands.

“We have even said to them at the bargaining table, is this the best you can afford? And they refuse to answer that because they don’t want to show us their financials,” Marino said. “So we said, ‘Well, if this is the best you’re offering, then at least consider one of our many workload-related proposals. And they also are unwilling to budge on those.”

According to Dr. Adrienne Khanolkar, inadequate staffing is one of the primary problems across the organization. But despite its issues, the health care professionals on strike want to stay.

“All of us are highly employable people,” Marino said. “Primary care physicians are in high demand. But we love LifeLong. We don’t want to leave. We have incredible colleagues and we’re loyal to our patients. We want to make it better.”

LifeLong released a press statement Monday that states, “We take provider concerns about workload seriously, and several provisions already agreed to for the new CBA directly address workload and support for providers. LifeLong has offered across the board wage increases and additional compensation benefits. We are disappointed that we have not been able to reach an agreement and that patients will be impacted by the strike on Monday. Our providers are valued colleagues and an important part of LifeLong and the care we provide. We remain committed to reaching a fair and sustainable agreement.”

The healthcare provider has also said it is facing “significant uncertainty in the health care landscape and must protect patient access, support our broader workforce, and ensure we can continue serving our communities for the long term.”

With fewer patients covered by MediCal due to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, LifeLong is expecting significantly less reimbursement this year.

According to Khanolkar, a family medicine doctor at LifeLong’s East Oakland Health Center, negotiations with LifeLong this time around have been challenging.

“They have not been responsive or transparent. There’s been a lot of subterfuge,” she said. “There’s been a lot of misdirection, manipulation, gaslighting.”

Khanolkar said that the contract negotiated between the union and the nonprofit in 2023 did not address everything employees hoped it would. Rather than working with the union to improve the initial terms, LifeLong is attempting to undo many of the protections won, she said.

“It was really regressive bargaining. So we pushed back on those things… they told us that they are essentially not really considering other proposals. We hope that is not correct but it’s not a positive direction for things.”

If LifeLong does not make concessions, union members say they will continue to strike. For health care workers already living paycheck to paycheck, this will not be an easy undertaking.

“Even one day [on strike] is hard for some people living in the Bay Area,” Woolf said.

“We’re working on figuring out mutual aid support and crowdfunding to help support those providers on a prolonged strike,” said Marino.

Around noon, workers gathered in front of William Jenkins to hear speeches from UAPD president, Walnut Creek Dr. Stuart Bussey, Richmond city council members Sue Wilson and Claudia Jimenez, and Mayor Eduardo Martinez and his chief of staff, BK White, a former union negotiator for United Steelworkers (USW) Local 5 at Chevron.

LifeLongStrike_092826_Mtierney.jpeg
Union of American Physicians and Dentists President Dr. Stuart Bussey of Walnut Creek joined a one-day LifeLong strike in Richmond Monday. Credit: Maurice Tierney for Richmondside
“Here I am, four years later, and we still got the same problem,” Bussey told the crowd. “Everybody doesn’t realize how important you are in the community. How important you are to your patients. And they won’t even give you the cost of living.”

Wilson offered words of support to the striking workers.

“I’m here to really reinforce in Dr. Bussey and others that you have to take a stand today, because if you don’t take a stand, the conditions are gonna get worse, not just for providers, but for patients,” she said. “We love you, we thank you. Stay strong, and I know you’re gonna get what you need to settle this contract.”

It’s unknown when the next bargaining session will take place. The union expects to have more information on Tuesday.

LifeLong said patients with appointments should arrive as scheduled unless they hear directly from the healthcare provider that something has changed. Patients can call 510-981-4100 for more information.

LifeLong doctors, nurses and therapists strike across the East Bay

Workers want higher wages and better working conditions while management says they’re limited by federal financial uncertainties.

www.berkeleyside.org

US union SEIU launches ‘Healthcare Needs Us All’ campaign – as 1 million care workers face threat of deportation!
https://wrp.org.uk/features/us-union-launches-healthcare-needs-us-all-campaign-as-1-million-care-workers-face-threat-of-deportation/
29th September 2026

Service …Employees International union members in Manhattan fighting against Trump’s deportation of migrant workers
Healthcare workers gathered outside Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan last Thursday as part of a nationwide day of action focused on immigrant workers, with the SEIU trade union warning that changes to immigration protections could deepen staffing challenges and affect patients who rely on the healthcare system.

The rally was one of several held across New York City as part of ‘Healthcare Needs Us All,’ a campaign hosted by Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other labour organisations.
Workers and organisers called on Congress to restore legal status for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other forms of work authorisation, and create pathways to citizenship.
The demonstrations came as the Trump administration expands immigration enforcement and moves to end or alter protections for some immigrant populations. Haitian TPS holders have been especially vulnerable while also comprising a large segment of healthcare workers in the US
The concerns raised at the rally reflect a larger issue for the workforce, organisers said.
Nearly 20 per cent of essential caregivers and providers working in US hospitals, nursing homes and home and community-based care were born outside the United States, organisers said. Roughly one million healthcare workers have legal work authorisation that is threatened by current immigration policies.
Vernon Jefferson, a rehabilitation aide who has worked at the Lenox Hill Hospital for 40 years, said that the national immigration policies have severely disrupted the work environment.
‘Some of the workers, especially the immigrant workers, are nervous because they’re not sure what’s going to happen.’
Jefferson also said that four hospital workers had been sacked and deported.
Jasmine Braithwaite, a social worker who has worked at Lenox Hill for nine years, said the uncertainty can weigh on healthcare workers – whose jobs intrinsically involve caring for others – while worrying about their own security and ability to remain in the country.
‘How can you focus on completing your work and caring for other people, especially when you work in a hospital setting, when you have to worry about whether or not you’re going to be okay,’ she said.
Nadine Williamson, Local SEIU 1199’s senior executive vice president, linked the immigration issue to broader concerns about federal healthcare funding. She said the healthcare system is already facing pressure from $1 trillion in federal Medicaid cuts contained in the Republican budget bill.
‘The attacks on immigrants are making it even worse,’ Williamson said in a statement, calling for Congress to restore healthcare funding, reverse Medicaid cuts and provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers while restoring TPS.
Henry Garrido, the executive director of the union’s District Council 37, said: ‘Many of our own members are now facing the excruciating challenge of how to provide for their families while facing the threat of deportation.’
Other union demands include ending travel bans and processing delays that organisers say prevent qualified immigrants from working legally in or even reaching the United States, as well as redirecting money currently being used for deportation operations toward healthcare programmes.
The day of action extended beyond Manhattan. In Brooklyn, SEIU Local 1199 and New York State Nurses Association members rallied at Maimonides Medical Centre, emphasising the need to protect immigrant workers and patients.
Healthcare workers also gathered at Interfaith Medical Centre, holding signs and chanting in support of their foreign colleagues.
At Lenox Hill, the rally also highlighted the longstanding role of unions in organising healthcare workers.
Meanwhile last Tuesday, New York City officials announced a record $131.5 million settlement with the app-based delivery company DoorDash, as the delivery company has illegally underpaid more than 260,000 workers.
The settlement includes more than $115 million in payments to workers and more than $16 million in civil penalties and costs. It is the largest worker settlement in the history of both the city and the state.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani said: ‘For years, DoorDash failed to count every hour worked by delivery workers.
‘This was not a rounding error or an accidental mistake.’
The settlement covers workers who were underpaid between April 22, 2022, and June 28, 2026.
The city said it identified workers who are owed money through its analysis of DoorDash’s records.
Under the settlement, workers who were not paid at all will receive roughly three times the amount they were owed, while those who were paid late will receive roughly twice the amount.
Rosendo Tacam, a DoorDash delivery worker and leader of Los Deliveristas Unidos, an organisation that advocates for tens of thousands of delivery workers, said: ‘For many years, we delivery workers have been out here every day, working more than 80 hours a week, delivering food and medicine to keep New York City moving. I gave DoorDash everything I had, and then they “deactivated” me and didn’t pay me for my last week of work.’
Ligia Guallpa, executive director of Workers Justice Project, said the settlement was the result of years of organising by delivery workers.
Guallpa said: ‘This settlement puts money back in workers’ pockets and holds DoorDash accountable.
‘We celebrate this victory, but the fight continues: we will keep organising for job security, safer working conditions, higher pay and respect.’

Starbucks plans to close 250 North American stores this week.
It is the second big round of store closures under Starbucks Chairman and CEO Brian Niccol, who joined the company in 2024. Last September, Starbucks closed 627 stores in North America and Europe.
In a letter to employees, Starbucks Chief Operating Officer Mike Grams said the locations targeted ‘either aren’t delivering acceptable financial results or can’t provide the kind of experience that Starbucks wants for customers and employees’.
Starbucks Workers United, represents more than 12,000 workers at the 700 company-owned US Starbucks stores that have voted to unionise.
The union said: The closing continues Starbucks’ trend of carrying out a betrayal of what workers and customers loved about the company.
‘As Starbucks continues to close stores, violate labour law, hike up our healthcare premiums,it has never been more clear why baristas need the backing of a union.
‘We love our jobs, and we know Starbucks doesn’t run without us, so we’re organising together to demand a better future and a fair contract.’
Starbucks stores have been voting to unionise since late 2021.
A nationwide strike of more than 4,500 workers across 130 stores late last year failed to result in a contract agreement and this summer the union called for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks.
In the midst of that boycott workers at a Queens Starbucks voted 19-1 to unionise with Workers United, the union announced on Sept. 15, becoming the 65th Starbucks in New York to unionise.
Meanwhile, members of Teamsters Local 767 at Safran Seats were forced to launch an unfair labour practice (ULP) strike in Gainesville, Texas, after the employer refused to offer a contract that did not require mandatory overtime.
Dave Reeves, President of Local 767 said: ‘Instead of addressing Safran Teamsters’ concerns with a provision in the tentative agreement, the company has decided to play games at the bargaining table and forced us to the picket line.
‘Due to Safran’s unwillingness to present a revised agreement without mandatory overtime, Teamsters will be on strike until the company gets serious and offers a fair contract.’
More than 350 Teamsters build airplane seats for major airlines at one of the nation’s largest suppliers.
Michelle Shero, a Teamsters member, said: ‘We are out here striking because we want no mandatory overtime, our holiday pay back, and fair wages for all of us Teamsters. We deserve a strong contract for all of the hard work we put in day in and day out.’

US union launches ‘Healthcare Needs Us All’ campaign – as 1 million care workers face threat of deportation! – Workers Revolutionary Party

Healthcare workers gathered outside Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan last Thursday as part of a nationwide day of action focused on immigrant …

wrp.org.uk

How a Labor Union Bested the Political Establishment in New York
The United Auto Workers has grown in size by opening its tent to workers in white-collar professions, and by adopting democratic socialist stances. But its growth has also led to political friction.

…https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/24/nyregion/uaw-union-labor-nyc.html?searchResultPosition=1

Several people, their faces splashed with sunlight, smile as they pose for a picture behind a circular U.A.W. sign held by one woman.
The U.A.W. Region 9A branch, led by Brandon Mancilla, left, endorsed Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Brad Lander in their successful House primary bids in June. Credit…Madison Swart for The New York Times
Sally Goldenberg.webp
By Sally Goldenberg
Published Sept. 24, 2026
Updated Sept. 28, 2026, 10:14 a.m. ET
As voters headed toward a polling site in New York City in early summer, a campaign volunteer made a last-minute pitch.

Claire Valdez, a state assemblywoman running for an open congressional seat, was a rank-and-file union member, the volunteer offered. A prospective voter was intrigued, and asked which union.

Ms. Valdez belonged to the United Auto Workers. And no, the volunteer acknowledged, she was not actually an auto worker.

The U.A.W., a large international union headquartered in Detroit, has done what many labor groups have found impossible. After a steep decline in membership, it has expanded its ranks even as its core industry has shrunk, finding new life by using organizing efforts in New York City to enroll white-collar workers in private universities, museums and public-interest law practices.

In doing so, the U.A.W. has managed to upend the political establishment in New York City, gaining clout by buoying insurgent power.

The union’s regional branch, which includes the city, was an early endorser of Zohran Mamdani’s long-shot bid for mayor over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had the support of virtually every other union in New York. It backed Ms. Valdez, who won her congressional primary in Brooklyn and Queens against Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president supported by most of the city’s unions.

The U.A.W. Region 9A also endorsed Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who upset Representative Adriano Espaillat in a district covering Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx. Mr. Espaillat also had the widespread backing of labor organizations.

Ms. Avila Chevalier, like Ms. Valdez, is a U.A.W. member; she joined the union through her work as an investigator for public defenders. Ms. Valdez joined in 2018, when she was a visual arts program assistant at Columbia University, a job she held for six years until being elected to the Assembly.

Bringing white-collar workers like Ms. Valdez and Ms. Avila Chevalier into the fold has helped the union buck a prolonged and substantial decline in union membership across the nation. Membership rates dropped from roughly 20 percent in 1983 to 10 percent in 2025.
Image
Supporters of a U.A.W. rally in Manhattan, several holding aloft the union’s signs.
The U.A.W., which, like most unions, suffered precipitous declines in its membership over the last few decades, has added members in recent years, especially in New York.Credit…Madison Swart for The New York Times
The U.A.W. had been experiencing similar declines. After swelling its ranks to 1.5 million in the 1970s, its membership dropped to 370,000 in 2023, its lowest level since 2009, according to a report filed with the U.S. Labor Department. By the end of 2025, it had risen to more than 390,000.

In Region 9A, which covers eastern parts of New York, New England and Puerto Rico, only 1,000 of the region’s 35,000 active members work in the auto industry, according to Brandon Mancilla, the region’s director. Roughly 20,000 are based in New York City, up more than 50 percent from 2022.

Mr. Mancilla, 32, argued that organized labor’s diminished power helped fuel Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, as Mr. Trump capitalized on working-class Americans’ economic frustrations.

“Our members, like a lot of working-class, middle-class people, feel like the establishment hasn’t worked for them,” Mr. Mancilla said in an interview from a Yemeni coffee shop in the West Village. “They’ve fallen behind. What we’re doing as a labor movement isn’t working.”

Through interviews with two dozen current and former U.A.W. members and people in other unions in New York, a picture emerged of how the union’s Northeast branch has managed to reinvent itself.

Region 9A has fought for contracts for legal services professionals, helped to unionize student workers at Columbia University and is trying to organize low-wage employees at a popular New York City bakery. It also represents gunmakers in Connecticut and submarine builders in Maine.

“You might say, what do they have in common with auto workers?” said Diane Savino, a labor leader-turned-politician who later served as an adviser to Mayor Eric Adams. “Doesn’t matter. If a union wants to remain relevant, it has to have members, and if the work that you originally started doesn’t exist anymore, well, there are lots of people out there who need representation.”

The union’s growth has also led to political friction. Some of U.A.W. Region 9A’s newer leaders are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, and work closely with the political organization — a relationship that, at times, has led the U.A.W. to push for progressive causes in divisive situations.

The Israel-Hamas war is a prime example.

In December 2023, less than two months after the deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, to which Israel responded with prolonged force, the union declared its support for a cease-fire resolution. It also announced the formation of a Divestment and Just Transition working group to “study the history of Israel and Palestine” and the union’s economic ties to the conflict.

Mr. Mancilla speaks into a mic and stands in front of a sign that reads “Not on our Dime,” while people stand behind him holding signs and Mr. Mamdani watches him from the side.
U.A.W.’s Region 9A, which endorsed Zohran Mamdani’s bid for mayor, had previously lent its support to Mr. Mamdani’s state legislative efforts to stop state funding of Israeli settlements.Credit…Sarah Blesener for The New York Times
The war came up again during the union’s international convention in Detroit in June, when Local 7902 from Region 9A pushed for a resolution to cut ties between the union’s funds and Israeli bonds.

Earlier versions of the resolution were struck down before getting to a vote because they vilified defense workers represented by the U.A.W., according to several people who attended the convention.

“In a perfect world, I wouldn’t want the U.S. manufacturing weapons that they use to kill people anywhere,” said Micaela Suminski, president of Local 7902, which represents adjunct professors and graduate student workers. “But I hold the president and Congress responsible for that, not the workers at the weapons plants.”

After fierce debate, the measure passed by a margin of 321 to 287.

Pam Smith, past president of Local 2320, the Manhattan-based branch that represents legal service workers, recalled how some members were passionate about supporting Gaza, but noted that “others had serious concerns about particular positions the union took, the union’s role in the issue or the resources devoted to it.”

“I believe unions have an important role in speaking out against injustice, including around the Israel-Palestine conflict,” Ms. Smith added. “At the same time, a union’s fundamental obligation is to its membership.”

The international U.A.W. has long engaged in political activism, having spoken out against apartheid in South Africa and racial segregation in America.

Still, the fierce debate over Israel underscored an inherent contradiction within the union. Local 376, located in Connecticut, represents workers who produce firearms for Colt’s Manufacturing Company, which sells weapons to Israel.

Another local union in Maine represents marine draftsmen who design nuclear-powered submarines for Bath Iron Works, a subsidiary of the defense company General Dynamics. That arm, Local 3999, abstained from the cease-fire resolution vote.

And when the Connecticut branch of the D.S.A. demonstrated outside the Colt’s plant in West Hartford three years ago to protest“their role in supplying weapons to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza,” some U.A.W. members expressed an interest in joining.

Aaron Eisenberg, political director for U.A.W. Region 9A, said the protest was “unappreciated by our membership,” as were requests to protest outside a different site in Connecticut, where members of Local 571 also make nuclear-powered submarines.

“We don’t have the same relationship with Connecticut D.S.A. as we do with New York City D.S.A., because they did lead one of those types of pickets, and we had to be like, This is not cool,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “These are people showing up to work. Do you think they’re happy about what’s going on? You haven’t asked them anything.”

The presidents of Locals 376 and 571 did not respond to requests for comment, and the president of Local 3999 declined to comment.

The issue persists in the union halls of New York.

U.A.W. Local 2179, which counts among its members retail workers and guide dog trainers, has been trying to organize workers at the popular Breads Bakery, known across New York City for its babka. The effort, which garnered attention in January, included a demand that the owners “halt use of bakery profit to materially support the Israeli occupation.”
Image
Breads Bakery as seen from the outside. There are white tables and red chairs outside.
Region 9A has tried to organize workers at Breads Bakery in New York, with the Israel-Hamas war surfacing as a labor issue.Credit…Vincent Alban/The New York Times

William Bobrowski, an official with Local 2179, based in suburban Pelham, N.Y., said that employees are upset that “they, in their daily work, are handling products that come from the occupied territories.”

Asked how he feels about being in a union that includes defense workers who make guns sold to Israel, Mr. Bobrowski, a former worker at the Strand Bookstore in Manhattan, called it “wonderful.”

“It creates a more volatile dynamic, there’s more debate, there’s no Stalinist, one-party line,” he said. “Life is full of contradictions and paradoxes.”

Jennifer McPartland, a spokeswoman for Breads, said the company was not interested in taking sides in international conflicts. “We bake babka for people to enjoy,” she said. “We don’t engage in politics. We celebrate peace and welcome individuals of all cultures and beliefs.”

With a budget of $1.2 billion, a strike fund of over $850 million and an international president, Shawn Fain, being bandied about as a long-shot progressive presidential candidate, the U.A.W. has become an undeniable, if complicated, force. It also remains under a federal monitor, after a national corruption scandal that preceded Mr. Fain’s rise.

The union’s success has been regarded with some suspicion and, perhaps, jealousy, from other unions in New York. Their leaders privately contend that it’s easy for the U.A.W., a union with politically active members and relatively high turnover, to back insurgent candidates, when other large unions typically have longstanding relationships with incumbent lawmakers.

Mr. Eisenberg described a call of union political directors in the state A.F.L.-C.I.O. after the June election, saying many of his compatriots expressed frustration that their election tactics failed in several congressional primaries.

Kevin Elkins, who recently left his job as political director of a New York City-based carpenters union, seemed inclined to dismiss the U.A.W.’s performance in local primaries.

“When you have a union that is ideologically driven because of their membership,” he said, “and the most competitive elections are all in districts where the voters are younger, more college educated and prone to support far-left candidates, of course you’re going to have a great night.”
Sally Goldenberg is a Times reporter covering New York City politics and government.

How a Labor Union Bested the Political Establishment in New York

The United Auto Workers has grown in size by opening its tent to workers in white-collar professions, and by adopting democratic socialist stances….

www.nytimes.com

Billionaire Bankrollers: Meet the 22 California Billionaires Opposing Prop 40
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/09/28/meet-the-22-california-billionaires-opposing-prop-40/
SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
CHUCK COLLINS

On November 3, 2026, California voters will vote on Proposition 40, a …one-time 5 percent levy on the net worth of billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund health care programs, with the remainder set aside for food assistance and education.
A small segment of the state’s 200 plus billionaires has stepped up to oppose Prop 40, contributing millions to opposition groups and vocally speaking out against the one-time fee.
In a brief report, “California’s Billionaire Wealth Surge: Meet the 22 California Billionaires Opposing Prop 40 Billionaire Wealth Tax,” we identified 22 California billionaires who are active funders and outspoken opponents of Prop 40. Together they have given over $150 million to oppose the initiative — with more rolling in every day. These 22 include a prince, several private jet flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the AI future for the rest of us.
On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion.
In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64 percent.
Just to be clear, these “snowflake billionaires” are whining, wailing, and donating money to fight a tax that would effectively require them to part with one-eighth of the wealth they’ve gained since January 1, 2025.
This group includes Google’s Sergey Brin who has been the single largest opposition donor, chipping in over $102 million to fight Prop 40. Brin has seen his wealth grow a whopping 70 percent in the last 20 months, from $148 billion on January 1, 2025 to $253 billion on September 1, 2026. Brin’s wealth is 83,498 times the median wealth of a Californian household, which is $303,000.
Palantir’s Peter Thiel gave $3 million to the No on 40 campaign and has called on other billionaires to move out of California. In the last 20 months, Thiel’s wealth increased a whopping 120.27 percent, from $14.8 billion on January 1, 2025 to $32.6 billion on September 1, 2026 (Forbes). Thiel’s wealth is 10,759 times the median wealth of a Californian household.
Chris Larsen, founder of cryptocurrency firm Ripple has given over $5 million to the No on Prop 40 Campaign, along with another $5 million from Ripple and $12 million to Building a Better California. His personal wealth increased 23.5 percent, from $10.2 billion to $12.6 billion in the last twenty months. His wealth is 4,158 times the wealth of the median California family.
Venture capitalist John Doerr gave $10 million to No On 40. In the last 20 months, Doerr’s wealth increased 47.97 percent, from $14.8 billion on January 1, 2025 to $21.9 billion on September 1, 2026. Doerr’s wealth is 7,227 times the median wealth of a Californian household.
Three of the twenty saw their wealth decline over this 20-month period: Tony Xu, Marc Pincus, and Marco DeGeorge. But most have experienced substantial gains.
California Billionaires vs. the Median California Household

The number of billionaires in California has grown, with their average wealth remaining roughly between $9.1 to $9.4 billion. As of September 1, 2026, the 231 billionaires identified as living in California have a combined wealth of $2.117 trillion. Just twenty months ago, there were 178 billionaires in California with a combined wealth of $1.685 trillion.
To show how quickly billionaire wealth has accelerated since the pandemic, let’s go back in time six years. In early 2020, all 815 billionaires residing in the United States had a combined wealth of $2.9 trillion, only slightly more than what the 231 California billionaires have today in 2026.
Meanwhile, the median net worth of a California household has risen a marginal 5.2 percent increasing $15,000 from $288,000 in 2025 to $303,000 in 2026. A Californian with $1 billion dollars in wealth has 303 times the wealth of the median California household.
Under Prop 40, this billionaire will pay a one-time tax of $50 million to support healthcare, education, and food assistance for their fellow Californians leaving them $950 million to survive on.
The Under-Taxed California Billionaire

In California, the state’s 231 billionaires (as of Sept 1, 2026) hold approximately $2.117 trillion in wealth ($2.3 trillion as of Sept 22, 2026) and pay incredibly low taxes on their riches.
According to an analysis published by economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, from 2019 to 2025, while California billionaires’ wealth grew an average of over 15 percent per year, they paid, on average, just 0.26 percent of their wealth annually in state income taxes. Sergey Brin and Larry Page paid just 0.07 percent of their wealth annually in California income tax during that period. I guess we can see why they don’t want anything to change.
This analysis prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies and Tax the Ultra-Rich Now (TURN). More detailed dossiers available soon. Press release HERE.
Chuck Collins directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he also co-edits Inequality.org.

Billionaire Bankrollers: Meet the 22 California Billionaires Opposing Prop 40

On November 3, 2026, California voters will vote on Proposition 40, a one-time 5 percent levy on the net worth of billionaires who were California

www.counterpunch.org

Nuclear workers are exposed to cancer causing radiation. Now Trump's Nuclear Regulatory commission now thinks they need to be exposed to more, not less, radiation

NRC Wants to Bulldoze Workplace Radiation Protections – Confined Space

Trump’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a proposed regulation that will increase worker exposure to cancer-causing radiation.

jordanbarab.com

Billionaires pour money into effort to defeat billionaire tax
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/billionaire-tax-fight-has-become-200m-battle/article_31b8898d-bb5a-4ff5-97a0-5921537adea6.html
By Troy Wolverton | Examiner staff writer 9 hrs ago

The Building a Better …California PAC formed by Alphabet co-founder and centibillionaire Sergey Brin (seen in March 2025 ) has raised $110.7 million since the end of June.
Evan Agostini, Invision/Associated Press

If campaign funding is any indication, the state’s billionaires are really opposed to paying a tax on their wealth.

Thanks to a flood of money from the ultrarich in recent weeks, the fight over the billionaire tax being proposed via Proposition 40 is on track to be the second-most expensive ballot battle in state history.

And with Election Day still more than a month away, the brawl could get even pricier.

“The billionaires have the money to spend, so it makes sense that they’re spending it,” said Sarah Hill, a political-science professor at California State University, Fullerton.

Pushed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West to make up for federal cuts to health-care funding — the bulk of which will start taking effect next year — Prop. 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on the nonproperty wealth of the state’s billionaires.

Propositions 41 and 42 — placed on the ballot by opponents of the tax measure — would nullify Prop. 40 if either passes with more votes.

Through Thursday, the combined contributions to the campaigns for and against those propositions had hit $243.7 million, according to data from the Secretary of State’s office.

That tops the $226 million that was raised for and against Proposition 22, a 2020 measure set working conditions for ride-hail and delivery drivers. That contest previously ranked as the state’s second-priciest ballot-measure battle.

The only ballot fight more expensive was the one over propositions 26 and 27 — a pair of competing sports-gambling measures in 2022 — according to Ballotopedia. The campaigns for and against those measures together raised $571.6 million, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

While the billionaire-tax battle might not reach that level, it’s been gaining ground quickly. Just since the end of June, $103.5 million has been sunk into the tax fight. Of that amount, only about $432,000 went to the pro-tax effort.

Suzanne Jimenez, the chief of staff at SEIU-UHW, said she wasn’t surprised by how much money was flooding into the effort to defeat the billionaire tax. Billionaires seem willing to spend whatever it takes to shoot it down, no matter the consequences, she said.

“I think it just speaks to how really screwed up or how kind of skewed priorities are in this state where billionaires are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars … instead of just paying a very minimal tax to make sure we have a functioning health-care system,” Jimenez said.

Nearly all of the $103 million raised since June 30 by the individual campaigns fighting the billionaire tax or promoting the rival measures came from Building a Better California. That political-action committee, which was formed by Alphabet co-founder and centibillionaire Sergey Brin, itself has raised $110.7 million since the end of June, according to campaign-finance records from the California secretary of state.

The tally of recent contributors to Building a Better California reads like a list of Silicon Valley’s rich and famous — many of them billionaires, according to Forbes magazine.

Since July 1, Brin — the world’s fifth-wealthiest person, with $225.4 billion in assets — and John Doerr, the chairman of venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins, who is worth $22.7 billion, each contributed $20 million.

Stripe CEO Patrick Collison (worth $17.5 billion) chipped in $15 million; venture investor Vinod Khosla (worth $11.5 billion), $12.6 million; former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (worth $37.8 billion), $12.1 million; and Ripple Executive Chairman Chris Larsen (worth $8.4 billion), $10 million.

State campaign-finance records show Stripe CEO Patrick Collison (seen in November), who is worth $17.5 billion, has contributed $15 million to the Building a Better California PAC.
Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Other tech and venture billionaires contributing to the campaign over the last three months include Rippling CEO Parker Conrad; Affirm CEO Max Levchin; former Zynga CEO Mark Pincus; venture capitalist and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale; and Jed McCaleb, Ripple’s former chief technology officer.

The remaining 17 contributors in recent months include Stewart Resnick, the CEO of agricultural giant The Wonderful Company, who is worth $5.4 billion; Reddit CEO Steve Huffman, whose stock in the company is worth hundreds of millions of dollars; and a collection of investment professionals, including Alfred Lin and Shaun Maguire from blue-chip Silicon Valley venture firm Sequoia Capital.

Since it was formed in January, Building a Better California has raised $228.8 million, $200.5 million of which it has already contributed to the anti-Prop. 40 and and pro-Prop. 41 and 42 campaigns.

By comparison, the yes on 22 committee, which was mostly funded by Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and PostMates, raised $205 million through the entire course of its campaign to promote Prop. 22.

Just by himself, Brin has contributed a total of $102 million to Building a Better California, easily making him its biggest donor.

In an email, Building a Better California spokesperson Abby Lunardini quibbled with the comparison to other ballot battles. The Prop. 22 fight involved one ballot measure instead of three, she noted. Building a Better California’s spending reflects the signature gathering and other efforts to get propositions 41 and 42 on the ballot, she said.

Lunardini declined to comment about the billionaires’ contributions to the campaign against the tax.

SEIU-UHW has provided 99% of the $31.8 million raised to date by the yes on 40 campaign, but only about $172,000 since June 30.

Other than that, the biggest contributions to the pro-tax campaign have come from Hillary Perkins of San Rafael, who donated $100,000; Ross Boucher of San Francisco, who gave $50,000. John O’Farrell of Atherton, Alan Davis of San Francisco and the Oakland-based council of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees union gave $25,000 each.

Billionaire-tax proponents have no illusions about being able to keep up with their opponents’ campaign funding and spending, Jimenez said.

“We don’t have those types of resources,” she said.

Hill said the outcome of a ballot proposition isn’t necessarily determined by how much money is spent for or against it, but it’s better to have more money than less.

By default, voters typically vote against propositions — and campaign spending against a particular measure can help submarine it, Hill said.

“It’s much easier to convince voters to vote no than yes, because if they’re confused or in doubt, they keep the status quo,” she said. “They just say no.”

The spending against the proposition might be starting to make a difference. While polls earlier this year showed strong support for the billionaire tax, more recent ones indicate a much closer contest.

A poll earlier this week from Politico and the UC Berkeley Citrin Center found the race to be a dead heat among likely voters.

It’s unclear just how much of the money raised by the ballot-measure campaign committees — as opposed to Building a Better California — has been spent. The campaigns update their expenditures quarterly, and their next reports likely won’t come out until after the election.

But through the end of June — the most recent period for which they’d disclosed their spending — the campaigns for and against propositions 40, 41 and 42 had collectively spent $138.6 million of the $140.2 million they’d raised.

That’s almost certainly going to go up. In recent weeks, the no on 40 and yes on 42 campaigns, in particular, have been signing advertising contracts with cable and satellite systems and local broadcasters, according to documents filed with the Federal Communications Commission.

In San Diego, those campaigns have already started airing ads on cable channels.

Instead of focusing on a TV-ad blitz, the yes on 40 campaign plans to lean on volunteers and allied organizations such as Indivisible and the Democratic Socialists of America to get the word out about the measure via phone calls, text messages and door-to-door canvassing, Jimenez said.

And she thinks the ad campaign by opponents could backfire. Voters are likely to question just why there are so many antitax ads on the air and wonder who’s behind them, she said.

“As people just do a little bit of digging, they see it’s billionaires saying, ‘Hey, don’t tax me.’” she said. “And I think voters are going to see through that.”

Written in part by a pair of UC Berkeley professors, Prop. 40 was designed as a response to last year’s federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Also known as House Resolution 1, that measure — which cut health-care spending nationwide — is expected to cost California about $100 billion over the next five years.

Proponents of Prop. 40 project it will raise a similar amount of money, 90% of which would go toward funding health care in the state. The other 10% would be set aside for education and food-assistance programs.

The measure has the backing not only of SEIU-UHW, but the California Federation of Labor Unions, the state’s Democratic Party and the California Nurses Association.

Opponents of the measure include many of the state’s top-ranking public officials and those running for its top offices, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Treasurer Fiona Ma, and gubernatorial candidates Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton.

It’s also opposed by the California Teachers Association, the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood, the state Republican Party and an array of business and antitax groups.

While the state Democratic Party supports Prop. 40, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democratic officials in California have come out against the wealth-tax measure.
Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Such figures and groups have warned that the measure could end up decreasing state revenues in the long run by encouraging billionaires to flee the state.

Brin, for example, reportedly moved to Nevada recently, although it’s unclear whether that will get him out of paying the tax because he would have had to establish full-time residency there by the beginning of this year.

Sponsored by Building a Better California, propositions 41 and 42 were designed as poison pills for the billionaire tax — if Prop. 40 passes, it won’t take effect if either Prop. 41 or Prop. 42 draw more votes.

Prop. 41 would require that any money raised by taxes passed after Jan. 1 of this year would be subject to the so-called Gann spending limit put in place by Proposition 4 in 1979.

Prop. 42 would essentially bar all nonproperty wealth taxes and prohibit the state from applying any such taxes retroactively.

Spending on billionaire tax battle tops $200M

CA billionaires pour money into anti-tax effort.

www.sfexaminer.com

No Deportations! Haiti Rally In SF For Human Rights As Part Of National Day Of Action
https://youtu.be/rfKOdgwpnAw
As part of an international day of action for Haitian refugees on September 24, 2026 a rally was held in San Francisco. Trump has taken away Temporary Protective Status TPS …that takes away the right of 350,000 Haitians to stay in the United States.Speakers talked about the costs of that to the Haitian people, all immigrants and the people of the United States.
Additional Media:
Haiti Coups US Labor & The AFL-CIO
https://youtu.be/Dos6qja0q3g
Labor Neoliberalism and the 2004 Coup in Haiti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvgeZOQmtA4
SF Solidarity With Haitians On US Border & US Out of Haiti Now! https://youtu.be/wvgeZOQmtA4
Haiti May Day 2019 & The CODEV Workers Walk Out
https://youtu.be/LE-Zsv_xMdA
Production of Labor Video Project
www.labromedia.net

www.labromedia.net

www.labromedia.net

Prop. 44 has community clinics and a California union butting heads
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/public-health/prop-44-divides-community-clinics-and-health-care-union/article_914eeaf8-9803-42ee-ad04-4c039a05cda3.html
By Natalia Gurevich | Examiner staff writer 5 hrs ago

Equity …Health patient and patient-board member Mark Beasley, right, seen at the organization’s dental clinic on 7th Street: “The numbers that they’re talking about taking away would affect our services. It would be a huge hit on things.”
Craig Lee/The Examiner

Local clinical providers are in a battle with a California health-care workers union over a state ballot measure that would alter the way that clinics spend their funds.

Proposition 44, which is headed to the ballot in November, would require community clinics to spend 90% of their annual taxpayer-funded revenue on patient care, to be defined by the state attorney general. It would also authorize the state to impose punitive fines on noncompliant clinics.

Several organizations have come out in opposition to the measure, including the California Primary Care Association, the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Hospital Association, and the California Democratic Party.

The main proponent of the legislation is Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents more than 120,000 health-care workers, patients and consumers in California, according to its website.

The union attempted to get a similar measure passed last year, which failed. It has argued that some clinics are currently spending less than half of their taxpayer funds on patient care, with the rest going to “bloated CEO salaries and other wasteful spending.”

“As a result, patients wait months for appointments and healthcare workers struggle with staffing shortages, outdated equipment, and limited resources,” the union told The Examiner in a statement on Wednesday.

The union cited recent state and federal cuts to health care and social safety nets, making the use of what funding is available for these clinics even more of a pressing issue right now.

“Proposition 44 is simple,” the statement said. “It requires community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue from taxpayers on patient care and services that support patient care. That includes medical visits, mental health care, dental care, medications, medical equipment, transportation, language interpretation, care coordination, outreach, and other services that help patients receive care.”

But local community clinics in San Francisco say that the measure would hinder their ability to operate, placing restrictions on services and support that are vital to keeping their operations running smoothly and their doors open.

Members of the San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium, a network of 13 community clinics in The City, gathered at a rally earlier this month to share their concerns about what the consequences of the measure would be if passed.

They said the restrictions and penalties would force clinics to cut patient-enrollment navigators, translation services, transportation, and chief medical and nursing officers, among other things.

“The numbers that they’re talking about taking away would affect our services,” Mark Beasley, a patient-board member at Equity Health, told The Examiner. “It would be a huge hit on things … we may have to reduce clinicians, and we may have to shut down.”

Beasley, who spoke at the rally earlier this month, told The Examiner that he’s relied on community clinics in San Francisco for his care for years for diabetes and high blood pressure, and that in the past he’d been unable to receive timely care for his conditions, landing him in the emergency room.

“Once I got connected with Equity Health, I got a primary physician, I got dental services, and then I was able to do maintenance on the issues that I had before they got out of hand,” he said. “It would just have a domino effect on services that are much needed and provided for people who don’t have private insurance.”

The union said that the goal is not to reduce funding for community clinics, just to make them more accountable for the funding they receive.

“Proposition 44 will increase transparency by requiring clinics to publicly report how taxpayer healthcare dollars are spent,” it said in the statement released Wednesday.

“Currently, there is an estimated $1.7 billion in the clinic system that is not being spent on the core mission of patient care,” the union said. “Prop. 44 will make sure those healthcare dollars go where they can do the most good.”

The California Primary Care Association and several community clinics have filed a federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against SEIU-UHW and its president, Dave Regan, alleging that the union has used ballot initiatives such as Prop. 44 to intimidate and extort community health clinics into agreeing to its demands.

The complaint, filed last week, alleges that the union has offered to drop the measure if clinics would agree to certain union election procedures, including a demand that clinics add an additional 25,000 new members.

The complaint also alleges that the union offered to drop the measure if the California Primary Care Association reversed its opposition to Proposition 40, a November ballot measure that would enact a one-time wealth tax on billionaires in the state.

The lawsuit is the second legal action the association has taken against the union this year. It attempted to keep Prop. 44 off the ballot through a separate lawsuit, which failed.

Joey Cachuela, who’s representing the California Primary Care Association in the lawsuit, told The Examiner that the actions described in the complaint are just the latest in a yearslong pattern perpetuated by the union, with past coercive practices used against hospitals and dialysis centers.

“They have this history of pushing harmful ballot measures, legislation and using other political tactics to essentially extort health-care providers into acquiescing to their union organizing or their demands that are unrelated to the ballot measures or the legislation that they’re trying to pass,” he said.

Cachuela alleged that the union’s support of the measure is a “sham” and is merely a tool. The lawsuit is an attempt to prevent such activity from continuing in future election years, he said.

In response, the union said in Wednesday’s statement that the legal action represents an effort by the California Primary Care Association to “bully” the union and its members into backing down from efforts to hold clinics and CEOs accountable.

“CPCA’s first lawsuit attempting to keep Prop 44 off the ballot was dismissed, with the judge chastising the CPCA for attempting to prevent SEIU-UHW members from using the democratic process by filing ballot measures,” the statement said.

The union maintained that Prop. 44 is meant to help clinics better serve patients by ensuring they spend their funding primarily on patient care.

But Beasley said for him — and those like him who rely on such clinics — this isn’t the solution.

“I know — capital K-N-O-W — the effect that it’ll that it’ll have on the common people, the majority, who are paycheck to paycheck,” he said. “Somebody has to speak for us.”

Prop. 44 divides community clinics and health care union

The measure would restrict community clinic funding.

www.sfexaminer.com

Cal/OSHA lacking
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/letterstotheeditor/article/tenderloin-neighborhood-san-francisco-22443008.ph
Since Luis Guerrero was crushed to death by a forklift while working at Alco Iron & Metal last January, the news media has exposed the inadequacy of the …California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s worker safety enforcement.
As chair of the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment, I have exposed even more of that inadequacy. A California State Auditor’s Office report highlighted how the routine bureaucratic excuse of inadequate staffing does not meet the standards of a credible explanation.
Cal/OSHA consistently leaves funded staff positions unfilled. Cal/OSHA lacks commitment — not funding.
Guerrero was the third worker to die at Alco Iron & Metal over a period of eight years, according to a KTVU report. Once the media exposed this shameful record, Cal/OSHA announced it would refer Guerrero’s case to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution.
It took about six months for Cal/OSHA to send Guerrero’s case file to the district attorney for prosecution. I will not be surprised to learn that Guerrero’s death is just part of a pattern of crappy work leading to no prosecution at all.
Liz Ortega, Assembly member, District 20, San Leandro

Page Not Found

www.sfchronicle.com

…https://www.abridged.org/news/sacramento-charter-school-sutter-county/?link_source=ta_first_comment&taid=6ab43dddb012ad000126d8bd&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawUhgDdleHRuA2FlbQIxMABwZG9mAWJyaWQRMU9NYVRSMFVkbzFadzZsamRzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEekH0wk–81HLTcN-kBFocUsfxSmib6MHdx9e5GNAGAgzB5X_CtQ9tWp9-wHk_aem_4j6NkbtjeNTJBoS3cXYPMA

www.abridged.org

www.abridged.org

How Federal Agents Surveilled a Worker Assembly in Minneapolis
This year, several worker groups hosted democratic assemblies in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge. New documents show how they were surveilled for Operation Puppet Master.
…https://workdaymagazine.org/how-federal-agents-surveilled-a-worker-assembly-in-minneapolis/

By Amie Stager
On February 15, during Operation Metro Surge and following the January 23 economic shutdown, around 400 people from the Twin Cities gathered at the United Labor Centre in Minneapolis for a workers’ assembly on building the movement against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to newly released documents in the case against the Minnesota 15, who were indicted in June and charged with conspiracy for alleged anti-ICE activity, undercover federal agents were present at the assembly, and reported on the minute workings of the gathering.

Two documents, both submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota as exhibits in the case, are transcripts of recordings between two special agents and two unnamed undercover agents surveilling the worker assembly. One is three pages long and one is eight pages, and they include summaries of the debate and discourse that took place, and pejorative remarks about the appearances of some speakers at the assembly. They also show that agents did not appear to have a deep understanding of some of the oppressed and exploited community members who were present at the assembly. I am not including these documents, or quoting the specific comments that were made, to protect the privacy of people who were monitored without their consent, and we only offer details where I have a response from the individual who was surveilled.

In one document, an undercover agent described entering the building and being asked about how they found out about it. Then they went on to describe what happened during the assembly, focusing mostly on some of the people who spoke at the meeting, and summarizing what was being said in their own words. Specific quotes from the undercover agents focus on the physical appearances of speakers, including hair color and estimated weight, and when referencing people of color, they make remarks about skin color and ethnicity.

Labor organizer Kip Hedges spoke at the assembly. In one of the documents, an undercover agent called him a “friendly grandfather” who seems to be a “folk hero,” and the documents also share that he talked about ground rules and resolutions.

I asked Hedges to respond to the descriptions of him. “Having been in the anti-war movement, and having been involved in political causes for a long time, having the government and the police, the FBI or the DHS, watching what you’re doing didn’t come as a big surprise to me,” he told Workday Magazine. “I don’t have any response to the particulars of what was said in the transcript, except the fact that the chart they got in discovery, they are very interested in things like Workers Solidarity Circle and assemblies and unions. They have their guns trained directly on working-class fighters and on the working class and union movement, and we should take this absolutely dead serious because it looks like a lot of what they’re up to is mapping of who and what and how it all fits together, and that’s completely none of their business. But it also shows you how seriously they take the labor movement as an opponent to authoritarianism.”

The assembly members, most of whom were rank-and-file workers from various unions and workplaces, proposed, debated, and voted on actions and demands, including extending the call for a day of “no work, no school, no shopping” for May 1, 2026, or May Day. The document shows how the agents intended to continue investigating assembly members. One of the agents described his tactics as follows: “And what I was doing was just trying to be friendly, have my face out there, get phone numbers just easily.”

That same agent stated, “You know, they’re super, they’re super proud of the January 23rd protest.”

After stating that there were “no real threats” to ICE, another agent said, “One of the things they voted on, they voted on their demands and it was to abolish ICE and DHS. And then they finished the meeting with a Fuck ICE chant. But nothing like we’re going to go harm ICE agents type shit.”

The assembly was organized by union members and solidarity caucuses within unions, and hosted by members of the Twin Cities Workers Solidarity Circle, one of the organizations that the DHS included in a network of alleged conspiracy. Hedges is one of the founders of the Workers Solidarity Circle, which he says emerged after the 2024 joint expiration week of action where thousands of union members and a coalition of community groups banded together to demand better contracts and policies for working people in Minnesota.

The federal government’s investigations into unions and workers has not been limited to Minnesota. The Graduate Employees’ Organization (GEO) Local 3550, which represents graduate workers at the University of Michigan, released a statement about the government serving the union with a federal grand jury subpoena. The union says the subpoena, like the case against eight pro-Palestine activists who were indicted on alleged conspiracy charges, is meant to criminalize protest and dissent.

Additionally, a Republican senator launched a formal inquiry into the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) for hosting a discussion on U.S. foreign policy with Cuba at a union hall.

“Anybody who is in a union or has any connection to wanting to build any kind of resistance to ICE, or wants to stop climate change, or data centers, or Flock, the government has you on the menu right now,” said Hedges. “They plan to feast on all of us if we don’t stick together.”

By Amie Stager

Amie Stager is the Associate Editor for Workday Magazine.

How Federal Agents Surveilled a Worker Assembly in Minneapolis

This year, several worker groups hosted democratic assemblies in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge. New documents show how they were …

workdaymagazine.org

https://www.facebook.com/collegeinhighschool1/posts/pfbid02HmGLAiumTfTxHJ2Kskog7igYv8rWEpZz1MY2hy8Sjwt2qLgS96rEDNS7RydsK2J8l

The Progressive Case Against CA’s Billionaire Tax
by Randy Shaw on September 21, 2026
https://beyondchron.org/the-progressive-case-against-cas-billionaire-tax/
California Teachers Association Opposes Prop 40
Prop 40’s Progressive Disunity
Progressives overwhelmingly support… hiking taxes on billionaires. But the California Teachers Association and United Domestic Workers oppose Prop 40, California’s Billionaire Tax. Even SEIU California is neutral. Some of its leaders were personally threatened by Dave Regan, who heads SEIU-UHW and the Prop 40 campaign .

Most progressive groups back Prop 40. But the progressive unity likely needed for the measure to win is lacking.

Regan Failed to Unite Progressives

Few progressives want to oppose raising taxes on billionaires. If Dave Regan of SEIU-UHW cared about progressive unity, he would have come up with a billionaire tax measure that all would support.

But that’s not who Dave Regan is. Recent revelations about Regan “threatening and harassing” women and SEIU officials over their position on Prop 40 came as no surprise to those familiar with him. The many troubling allegations against Regan were confirmed by SEIU California’s own investigative report.

Regan was installed as head of SEIU-UHW in January 2009 as part of the international SEIU’s takeover of a steadily growing healthcare workers union headed by Sal Rosselli. Regan was an SEIU Executive Vice-President based in Ohio. He came in at a salary of nearly $300,000 a year, more than twice what Rosselli was paid.

I had just published a book from UC Press connecting the rise of SEIU to the impact of former UFW volunteers. So in hopes of getting me to support the UHW takeover, SEIU’s communications team set me up with a private interview with Dave Regan.

It did not go well. Regan aggressively lectured me on why Rosselli’s team was bad. He claimed he would be a far better leader. He was so rude that the media contact apologized to me after the interview. She said she had never seen Regan behave that way.

But that is how Dave Regan typically behaves. He is an arrogant bully. In 2012 I wrote about him holding a contest for SEIU members to get a one-on-one lunch with him (See “SEIU-UHW’s Regan Reaches Another New Low,” August 8, 2012). As the union’s ad read, “SEIU-UHW members who raise the most money for the political fund each month will win a one-hour lunch with SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan. Lunch will be scheduled at the end of the year as a group with all the winners in each region.”

Union members had to win a contest to get access to their highly-paid president.

Regan has blown tens of millions of member dollars on three losing ballot measures SEIU-UHW) sponsored targeting kidney dialysis clinics—Proposition 8 in 2018, Proposition 23 in 2020, and Proposition 29 in 2022. Regan doesn’t know how to build winning political coalitions.

Why Key Unions Oppose Prop 40

The California Federation of Labor backs Prop 40. So does the California Democratic Party and most unions and progressive groups. But to win a measure taxing people with unlimited funds progressive unity is essential.

The California Teachers Association explained its opposition:

“After thorough review and democratic debate about the Billionaire Tax Act, our State Council of Delegates — 800 educator representatives from throughout the state — determined that this policy will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve.”

The union prefers extending the taxes on the wealthy that were imposed under Proposition 30 and later Proposition 55. Both generate millions for schools and community colleges. They expire in 2030 unless voters extend them in 2028 or 2030. CTA understandably fears that passage of a billionaire’s tax going solely to hospitals will make it harder to extend these vital education taxes.

United Domestic Workers President Astrid Zuniga said her union supports the goal of taxing billionaires more but opposes Proposition 40 because it would not fund in-home or child care. It “does not create the sustainable funding stream that is required to fully fund vital care programs…we’re urging our members to vote no on Prop. 40, because we know it’s possible to deliver a better funding plan for our communities.”

Why didn’t Regan have his tax cover the very low-income workers proving in-home health services and child-care?

What Prop 40’s Defeat would Mean
The media will frame Prop 40’s likely defeat as sending a message that taxing the rich is not as popular as thought. But the real message is that progressive unity is essential for winning statewide ballot measures in California

The best news from a Prop 40 defeat is that another costly initiative loss coupled with his abuse of SEIU officials could a finally drive Dave Regan out of union leadership. Health-care workers in SEIU-UHW deserve better.

Randy Shaw

<I>Randy Shaw is the Editor of Beyond Chron and the Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which publishes Beyond Chron. Shaw's new book is the revised and updated, The Tenderloin: Sex, Crime and Resistance in the Heart of San Francisco. His prior books include Generation Priced Out: Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America. The Activist's Handbook: Winning Social Change in the 21st Century, and Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century. </I>

The Progressive Case Against CA’s Billionaire Tax – Beyond Chron

Progressive disunity on Prop 40

beyondchron.org

Protesters at Paramount’s gates say Bonta ‘caved’ on Warner Bros. merger deal
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2026-09-22/paramount-warner-bros-settlement-protest-bonta-newsom-hollywood-jobs
A protester wearing a face mask and a wide-brimmed hat holds a sign …that reads, "No job-killing merger."
SAG-AFTRA member Leah Garland joins dozens of fellow entertainment workers for a rally to protest the settlement merger for Paramount Skydance outside the Melrose Gate at Paramount Studios in Hollywood. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
By Samantha Masunaga
Staff Writer
Sept. 22, 2026 2:17 PM PT

Dozens of protesters rallied outside Paramount’s Melrose Ave. gate Tuesday, saying the state’s antitrust settlement does too little to protect Hollywood jobs from the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery merger.
The deal with Bonta and 11 other attorneys general requires 30 theatrical films a year, $1.5 billion in added production spending and a $47.5-million worker fund, and it clears the way for the roughly $110-billion merger to close by early October.
Protesters accused Bonta, Newsom and Bass of caving to political pressure, while Hollywood’s unions remain divided and officials argue the settlement keeps jobs in California.
Dozens of protesters rallied outside Paramount Skydance’s Melrose Ave. gate Tuesday morning to criticize the settlement agreement the company reached with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, arguing that it does too little to protect Hollywood jobs from the company’s impending merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

The protest, organized by the Block the Merger coalition, came a day after the two sides agreed to settle antitrust claims brought in July by Bonta and 11 other state attorneys general. The settlement clears the way for Paramount’s roughly $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The settlement agreement requires the combined company to release 30 films in theaters each year, commit at least an additional $1.5 billion to domestic film production and set aside $47.5 million for workers affected by the merger. It also includes stipulations on how basic cable channel negotiations must proceed, creates a board to protect the editorial independence of CBS News and CNN, and bars Paramount from selling or closing its Melrose Ave. lot or Warner Bros.’ Burbank lot while requiring it to operate them “in a manner consistent with past practices.” An independent monitor will oversee the settlement implementation.

Nevertheless, protesters held fake gravestones reading “RIP local business,” “RIP crew call” and “RIP creativity.” Speakers criticized the potential job losses stemming from the combination of two major studios. They cited an August report commissioned by Los Angeles County that estimated about 4,500 direct film and TV jobs in the county could be at risk over three years as the companies combine operations.

“These studios were built on the backs of labor,” actor and SAG-AFTRA national board executive committee member Frances Fisher said during the rally, as passing cars honked in support. “Without labor, they don’t have their billions and billions of dollars.”

Fisher and other speakers also said they felt betrayed by the terms of the settlement, which they viewed as more favorable to Paramount. They specifically called out Bonta, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, saying the officials had bowed to political pressure. Overhead, a plane flew a banner that read, “Thank You Bonta.”

“I was hoping Bonta would be a man of his word,” said Elyssa Phillips, a comedian who is a member of the Committee for the First Amendment, the Block the Merger coalition and served as a strike captain for SAG-AFTRA during the 2023 strikes. “He caved.”

Hollywood’s unions have been divided over whether to back a settlement. In August, the Directors Guild of America and IATSE urged Bonta and Paramount to settle, while the Writers Guild of America pursued its own lawsuit to block the merger. The WGA settled that suit Monday but said it still believes the deal will harm writers and the industry.

During a news conference Monday about the settlement, Bonta was quick to say the agreement was “not a vote of support for this merger,” and acknowledged that some may have wanted a “different outcome.” He had originally advocated for structural changes to be part of a settlement agreement.

But ultimately, he said, “when we can find a strong solution that protects competition and consumers, I’d rather resolve the case, the issue, in the boardroom instead of the courtroom.”

During negotiations, Paramount had threatened to uproot the studio from California and move to Texas or Tennessee, a threat Bonta called “blackmail” and Newsom said he took “seriously.”

Newsom, who had pushed for a settlement, has called the agreement a “win for California workers and our creative economy.” Like the protesters, he framed the stakes around jobs, but he reached the opposite conclusion.

“Rather than spending years fighting in court and putting thousands of California jobs at risk, the parties came together and found a practical path forward,” Newsom said in a statement.

Bass had previously cited the uncertainty of the merger as a detriment to Hollywood workers’ livelihoods. In a statement Monday, she said she did not want to see two major studios consolidated, but that she would focus on holding them accountable to the settlement terms.

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison said in a statement Monday that the combined company would be headquartered in L.A., adding that “this is where our future is being built.” The company declined to comment on the Tuesday protest.

Not everyone outside the gates opposed the deal. Tanner Kelly, founder of the pro-merger organization Neighbors for Strong Communities, said his group had been concerned about job losses if Paramount were to leave California.

“The settlement yesterday gave them that hope that [workers] can continue creating art here in California, that they don’t have to leave the state,” he said.

Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav told staff in a memo that he expects the merger to close no later than early October.
Samantha Masunaga is a business reporter for the Los Angeles Times, with a focus on Hollywood studios. She also writes the weekly Wide Shot newsletter about the business of Hollywood. She’s worked at the paper since 2014.

Protesters at Paramount’s gates say Bonta ‘caved’ on Warner Bros. merger deal

Dozens rallied outside Paramount’s Hollywood lot, saying the settlement clearing its Warner Bros. merger fails to protect L.A. entertainment jobs.

www.latimes.com

THE AFL-CIO NUMBERS GIMMICK
Posted by Chris Townsend | Sep 18, 2026 | Featured Stories | 0
THE AFL-CIO NUMBERS GIMMICK https://mltoday.com/the-afl-cio-numbers-gimmick/
BY CHRIS TOWNSEND
September 16, 2026

All dealings with U.S. labor unions or discussions about them …invariably give rise to the obvious question about their numerical membership levels. The actual number of dues-paying union members has always been translated by most into some sort of measure of the overall health and power of that union.

This tendency persists despite the fact that there seems to be no absolute correlation between the number of union members in the union and the actual strength of that organization. In fact, the smallest union of the four unions that I have belonged to possessed a far, far, greater degree of power and influence – in all ways – than the other three, far larger unions.

Notwithstanding this, union leaders in particular today are prone to describe their union often in terms of size. This has evolved over the decades into a natural behavior, magnifying the impression that the number of members plays some outsized role in defining the relative trade union strength to be found. The 30th Convention of the AFL-CIO in Minneapolis, Minnesota, this past June did not disappoint those curious about or spellbound by labor movement numbers, either. A closer look is therefore in order regarding the number of union members who are also members of the AFL-CIO labor federation.

THE JUNE 2026 AFL-CIO CONVENTION

This writer and publication dedicated significant reporting to the recent Federation Convention, with two detailed articles in advance and a summary article just after the conclusion of the proceedings. See: https://mltoday.com/if-the-afl-cio-had-a-convention-would-anyone-notice/; https://mltoday.com/one-man-versus-the-afl-cio-machine/; https://mltoday.com/the-mummification-of-the-afl-cio/

While all three articles reached an above-average numbers of readers, the summary article generated a very large and interesting amount of attention, questions, and comments. Most of the questions and inquiries pertained to my reporting on the total membership numbers advertised and claimed throughout the proceedings by the AFL-CIO top leader, President Liz Shuler. In my third summary article “The Mummification of the AFL-CIO” I described the situation this way; “…almost 5 million phantom “members” are claimed by the federation leaders when in fact none are actual members at all.” The large amount of curiosity generated by this one sentence fragment deserves greater attention as a result.

ANSWERING WHAT SHOULD BE A SIMPLE QUESTION

How many members does the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, the AFL-CIO, really have? The Federation is, after all, the sum of its parts. This would be the cumulative total of all the unions and their individual U.S. based members who choose to be, and are permitted to be, affiliates of the only labor federation in the U.S. As of September, 2026, the AFL-CIO officially claims on their web site to consist of 65 national and international unions, comprising “nearly 15 million members”. See the AFL-CIO official explanation: https://aflcio.org/about-us/our-unions-and-allies/our-affiliated-unions

Answering a simple question like this does, however, take an explanation. Membership levels do fluctuate for all sorts of reasons. New workers are hired by unionized employers and are added to local unions as members; new workplaces are organized and new members join; layoffs occur, and sometimes workplaces are closed and the union members are lost. Canadian members of U.S. based “International Unions” are not dues-paying members of the AFL-CIO, but instead are likely members of the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC). Many unions also collect dues from retirees, and they are often counted in cumulative membership totals by unions. An entire union may also end its affiliation to the Federation, or be expelled, depriving the Federation of that union’s membership.

It is understood by all that union membership levels fluctuate, but few would expect wholesale fabrication or dishonesty with such an important “number”.

FIVE MILLION “ASSOCIATE MEMBERS”?

What has become a growing problem of sorts in recent years for the Federation is the steady growth of the so-called “Associate Members” included in the total membership numbers reported to the U.S. Department of Labor each year. The intrusive Landrum-Griffin Act compels unions to report a myriad of financial and organizational reports to the federal government, one aspect being an annual declaration of union membership totals. The catch-all “associate member” category was recognized by the Department of Labor during the Clinton regime. This presumably to account for “members” counted by the union, but paying reduced or mostly zero dues, and possessing no or extremely limited voting privileges within the functioning of the union. But let’s be clear; In no sense and at no time in the labor movement has the notion of an “associate member” ever been conflated with that of an actual, full-dues-paying union member.

In 2003, the AFL-CIO created the “Working America” subsidiary organization, and since then every contact made by the Working America canvassers – or people who find the Working America web site and leave their contact information somehow – are all counted as “associate members” of the AFL-CIO. From the inception of the labor movement, union “membership” was always defined as something granted to a worker who had filled-out the required union membership application form, tendered any required initiation fee, and then paid their first month of dues. That was the definition. The labor movement lobbying corps won this associate member “concession” from the Clinton Labor Department, with today’s consequences now run amok.

THE MINNOW BECOMES A WHALE

The Working America minnow has problematically grown to whale-size, now comprising more than one third of all “members” claimed by the AFL-CIO. While the AFL-CIO declares with a straight face having nearly 15 million “members”, the annual 2025 federal reporting form reveals that a full 4,823,802 of those “members” are merely Working America contacts. A further review of the federal AFL-CIO “LM-2” forms required to be filed will reveal confirmation of this in “Section 69, Additional Informational Summary”, and in “Schedule 13” of the same document.

Those who want to learn more about Working America will find their web site https://workingamerica.org/ very limited in any substantial or updated detail about what exactly this “Community Affiliate” of the AFL-CIO does beyond occasional canvassing for some basic worker issues and supporting assorted Democratic Party candidates. Any suggestion that you are “joining” a union is absent from the web site. There are also no links on the site to the actual AFL-CIO or any of its 65 affiliate unions, a very odd fact since there may well be workers encountered by the Working America canvassers or web site visitors who might be seeking more information about actually joining a union. It also took repeated internet searching for me to determine that Matt Morrison is the Executive Director of Working America. His bio offers that he is a lawyer and spent a very brief part of his political campaign career in the governmental affairs office of the Teachers Union (AFT). His near complete lack of any trade union experience or credentials is of course the shameful norm today in labor’s staff realm.

At the rate of growth of the Working America “members” one can predict that the proportion of overall AFL-CIO members will continue to shift towards the associate “phantom” members. The 2026 federal filings by the AFL-CIO are likely to include some new improved member numbers explained by the return of the large Service Employees Union (SEIU) to the Federation, but the non-member “member” phenomenon will continue to expand.

BOGUS MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS PART OF GENERAL DETERIORATION OF THE AFL-CIO

The sole explanation for this runaway membership falsification is to divert attention from the chronic membership slide experienced by the Federation practically from its inception in 1955. The refusal of the Federation leadership to seriously address the disastrous state of new union organization has led to this persistent use and abuse of the current sham membership numbers. The June Minneapolis Convention featured Federation President Liz Shuler offering a variety of membership numbers and organizing goal numbers, none of which are credible given these revelations.

No serious observer could possibly take seriously any of the numbers trumpeted by Shuler or any other members of the Executive Council. In fact, the Federation Executive Council is complicit in this membership misrepresentation. If it was merely a small quantity of “associate members” that were being used to embellish here and there this problem would be one thing.

But to find that a full 35% of the Federation’s “members” are phantom members paying no dues and having no vote is nothing short of scandalous. The moribund Ethical Practices Committee of the AFL-CIO might ordinarily be curious to discover that the Federation President is engaged in this systematic falsification, but since that Committee has not convened in more than 6 decades there is no apparent internal recourse to seek corrective measures.

FEDERATION DETERIORATION TAKEN FOR GRANTED

In practically any other realm the revelation that a membership organization has been regularly and systematically reporting at-minimum misleading membership numbers – to this gigantic extent – would have consequences. But not so with the AFL-CIO. Given that most democratic procedures have been largely extinguished, meetings of the leadership are infrequent and conducted in secret, and that only a tiny subset of Executive Council insiders dominate the entire Federation, the current outrageous and debilitating discovery is easily ignored. And the record will reflect from the recent Minneapolis Convention that no delegate took the floor to challenge these absurd membership claims – as they were offered repeatedly with no qualifiers or special explanations. Such context would be required so that the leadership assembly would clearly know that the actual membership levels were in reality nearly 5 million fewer.

Left publications and organizations also largely chose to ignore the recent AFL-CIO Convention. Those that did acknowledge it were largely uncritical cheerleaders for the lackluster leaders and scripted proceedings. This author and this publication were an exception, with our reporting and commentary providing practically the only left analysis of the Convention available. A Convention which after all represents the bulk of the organized workforce in the United States. Left to themselves, the ruling elements in most major unions and the AFL-CIO itself will remain unchallenged. With most of the meager labor left elements all scrambling to try to give credit to the nearly meaningless resolutions passed by the Federation, is it any wonder that whopper matters like wholesale falsification of actual Federation membership numbers were undiscovered in plain sight? The left must do better; this miserable performance must be addressed.

LEFT MUST SHOW LEADERSHIP

The current difficult situation does still offer many paths forward for labor. The membership in many unions repeatedly prove their willingness to fight to advance, and to defend previous gains, but only when properly led. Or led at all. The unorganized prove again and again their willingness to join the unions, in growing numbers and in many different sectors, but the unions largely trail along with only scattered and timid campaigns of organization – if they mount any at all. Trump and corporate attacks across a wide number of fronts have acted to mobilize entire sections of the working class, but with the existing unions only minimally engaged. Communist, socialist, and militant elements must be challenged to confront the labor leadership content with their own sorry record of inaction and outright misleadership. Absent that effort, little progress can be expected.

Legendary U.S. labor leader and communist William Z. Foster faced many of the identical problems and scenarios during his long career as a union leader. His collected works American Trade Unionism is required reading for anyone playing or hoping to play a serious role in today’s labor movement. Available at: https://www.intpubnyc.com/browse/american-trade-unionism/



-Chris Townsend is a 47-year union member and leader. He is the retired Political Action Director for the United Electrical Workers Union (UE) and was the new Organizing and Field Mobilization Director for the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). Townsend currently serves on the Executive Committee of the International Workers Institute (IWI), the research, publishing and strategy arm of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU). He may be reached at cwtownsend52@gmail.com

The AFL-CIO Numbers Gimmick – MLToday

facebook Twitter Like Gmail By Chris Townsend September 16, 2026   All dealings with U.S. labor unions or discussions about them invariably give …

mltoday.com

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02uRGTXCw1ED7Fb6bpYf5A3fHd5hFytFHiK6uQTEBrx8qAc4QzGhLMTRFmkf8U9H9ol&id=61576331941871