While many employers view implementation of workplace technology as a managerial prerogative, labor unions are increasingly framing issues such as electronic surveillance of employees, workplace algorithmic decision-making, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven management tools as core terms and conditions of employment and a new frontier for labor rights.
A set of proposed bills before the California State Legislature in the current 2025-2026 session target the growing role of artificial intelligence, automation, and surveillance in the workplace. Major unions such as the Teamsters and the California Nurses Association are signaling support for these bills and for regulation of workplace technology in general.
Public sector employers should be aware of such efforts in order to prepare for potential shifts in the law. New bills before the legislature seek to address the following issues:
Notably, some of the interests addressed in the proposed legislation correspond with the United States Department of Labor’s “Artificial Intelligence and Worker Well-Being: Principles and Best Practices for Developers and Employers,” issued in October 2024 and subsequently revoked following the change in administration in January of 2025.
A Push to Regulate AI and Algorithmic Management in the Workplace:
A central theme of the current bills before the State Legislature is limitation on the use of AI in employment decision-making. For example:
Senate Bill 947 (McNerney): Coined the “No Robot Bosses Act,” this bill would prohibit employers from relying solely on algorithmic decision-making in discipline or termination. Employers would be required to ensure human oversight and maintain corroborating evidence beyond algorithmic outputs. The bill also mandates disclosure to employees when such tools are used. The bill is part of a broader push to govern “algorithmic management” in the workplace. It is notably similar to Senate Bill 7 which was vetoed by Governor Newsom last year over concern that it imposed overly-broad restrictions on employer use of such tools. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.
Similarly, Assembly Bill 1883 (Bryan) takes aim at AI-driven surveillance tools, prohibiting technologies that infer personal information about workers or that may be considered invasive or biased, including facial recognition technology and an employee’s neural data. This bill raises questions about the continued viability of tools used for productivity monitoring, security, and workplace analytics. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.
Assembly Bill 2027 (Ward) restricting employers from using worker data to train AI systems that could automate or replace jobs. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.
More generally, Senate Bill 813 would create the California AI Standards and Safety Commission and empower the commission to identify the need for development of standards and regulations related to AI, and to take certain actions related to the safety of artificial intelligence.
Taken together, these measures reflect a policy objective of slowing or reshaping AI adoption in employment contexts, particularly where it may displace human labor or reduce managerial discretion.
Expansion of Notice and Transparency Requirements:
Major pillars of the legislative agenda are notice and transparency. For example,
Assembly Bill 1898 (Schultz) would require employers to provide written advance notice to workers that a workplace AI tool was used to assist the employer in making employment-related decisions or to surveil workers in the workplace. Employers would be required to disclose what data is collected, how it is collected, and how it will be used, and would require an employer to maintain an updated list of all workplace AI tools currently in use and their impact on jobs, as specified, and to provide the list to workers annually. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.
Senate Bill 951 (Reyes) This bill would establish the California Worker Technological Displacement Act, which would require an employer to provide at least a 90-day advanced written notice before any technological displacement affecting 25 or more workers or 25 percent of the workforce, whichever is less. Employers that lay off workers, reduce hiring, or otherwise alter workforce decisions due to AI or automation would need to provide advance notice to employees and government entities. The bill also creates a right for laid-off workers of employers with more than 100 employees to bid on open positions within the employer. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government employers.
Senate Bill238 (Smallwood-Cuevas) would require an employer to annually provide a notice to the Department of Industrial Relations of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. The bill would require the department to make the notice publicly available on the department’s internet website within 30 days of receiving the notice. The bill would define “employer” to include public employers.
Industry-Specific and Job Protection Measures
The legislative package also includes targeted efforts to preserve human roles in specific sectors. These bills draw bright-line rules to preserve human involvement in roles viewed as critical to safety, professional judgement, and public trust.
Assembly Bill 2575 (Ortega) would regulate AI in healthcare settings to ensure that professionals retain independent clinical judgment. Under the bill, a worker providing direct patient care would have the protected right to be free to use their professional judgment to make assessments and decisions within their scope of practice as appropriate for their patients. In its current form, if passed, this bill would apply to California local government-operated facilities.
Senate Bill 928 (Cervantes) would prohibit California State universities from replacing faculty with AI.
Senate Bill 1011 (McNerney) mandates human oversight and monitoring of automated decision systems in critical utilities infrastructure, and restricts job displacement. Covered utilities under the bill include publicaly owned utilities.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This legislative package is, in many respects, unprecedented. If enacted, these measures would:
Employers should anticipate heightened scrutiny from employees and labor organizations regarding the use of technology. Already, disputes over electronic surveillance, automated discipline, and use of algorithms are surfacing in collective bargaining, and they are often coupled with requests for information about how systems operate, what data is collected, and how decisions are made. In this environment, employers that fail to anticipate union interest risk not only legal exposure but also operational disruption and reputational harm. By contrast, employers that engage early, evaluate bargaining obligations before implementation, and build transparency and guardrails into their technology rollouts are better positioned to preserve flexibility, reduce conflict, and realize the intended efficiencies of new tools.
Employers should be aware that PERB law already establishes bargaining obligations related to some of the changes presented by the proposed legislation, such as workplace surveillance and changes to workload. For example, PERB has held that a District’s decision to install security surveillance cameras in areas where employees work or take breaks has reasonably foreseeable effects on discipline and performance evaluations, both matters within the scope of representation. (Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Dec. No. 2313.) PERB has also held that an employer must bargain over changes to employee assignments or duties if the change materially alters employees’ workload. (County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820-M.)
Looking Ahead
The workplace is becoming a primary battleground for regulating emerging technologies. While many of these proposals may be amended, face opposition, be voted down, or be vetoed by the Governor, they provide a clear roadmap of labor’s priorities. Public sector employers in California should begin evaluating their current use of AI, data collection practices, and workforce planning strategies now. Proactive assessment and strategic planning will be essential as the legal landscape continues to evolve.