California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act, barring employers from relying solely on artificial intelligence to fire or discipline workers. “When working people organize, we get results,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO and lead sponsor of the act. The law adds a check on automated decisions, but employers still make the calls.
Workers Push Back
Organized labor pushed for limits on employers’ use of AI to take adverse action against workers. California State Senator Jerry McNerney, the bill’s author, first introduced the act in 2025. “No worker should ever be fired or disciplined by a machine, AI or not,” he told CNBC. “Artificial intelligence systems have the potential to boost productivity, but they’ve also made errors and misjudgments and exhibited bias. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.”
Under SB 947, employers that rely primarily on AI output must have a human reviewer corroborate termination or disciplinary decisions with additional information, such as managerial evaluations, peer reviews and personnel files. Affected employees must get written notice that AI was primarily used, a description of the employee data the system used and a human contact who can explain the decision. The law restricts the machinery. It doesn’t transfer decision-making from employers to workers.
Gonzalez said workers across California had demanded that the state lead on regulating AI in workplaces. She added that workers and unions had “changed the national narrative on how Americans can fight back and win against AI taking over our jobs and workplaces.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties nonprofit, called the law a “strong step toward giving workers the protections they need in workplaces that use automated decisionmaking systems.” It said it would keep working with labor groups to “advance policies that protect human dignity in the workplace.”
The Bosses’ Red Lines
Newsom vetoed an earlier version in October, although both chambers of the state Legislature had approved it with overwhelming majority support. He objected to a requirement that businesses notify workers in advance whenever an AI system could affect work conditions. “I share the author’s concern that in certain cases unregulated use of ADS [automated decision-making software] by employers can be harmful to workers,” Newsom said, while arguing that the bill imposed “unfocused notification requirements.”
When McNerney reintroduced the bill in February, he removed the advance-notice requirement and language extending protections to gig workers. Rideshare companies Uber and Lyft had criticized that language. Business leaders continued to oppose SB 947. Robert Singleton, the Chamber of Progress’ senior director of policy and public affairs for California and US West, urged Newsom to veto it, saying the term “primarily relies” was undefined and could leave employers without an objective standard. He warned that uncertainty could discourage technology used to improve consistency, identify safety risks or help managers make better-informed decisions.
A Narrow Check, Not Worker Control
CNBC described SB 947 as the first law of its kind to become law. Illinois’ Public Act 103-0804 requires notice when employers use AI for specified employment purposes, but it doesn’t bar agentic digital systems from making employment decisions. U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) and Brian Schatz (D.-Hawaii) introduced federal legislation with the same name in June; CNBC said the bill was effectively dead on arrival. Similar measures proposed in New York, Louisiana and New Jersey hadn’t advanced.
The figures cited make workplace automation clear. An OECD survey published late the previous year found 90% of U.S. managers said their firms had adopted at least one tool to “instruct, monitor or evaluate workers.” Former employees suing Meta alleged in a lawsuit filed in July that AI-assisted systems ranked and selected workers for layoffs, disproportionately affecting employees who had taken medical or family leave. Meta denied the allegations. A May survey by United for Respect found Walmart and Amazon workers increasingly concerned about automated human-resources decisions; last summer, the nonprofit failed to persuade Walmart shareholders to require management to disclose more about AI use with its workforce.
Newsom was weighing a run for president in 2028, when AI policy was expected to be a major issue, particularly for Democratic hopefuls. Steve Hilton, California’s Republican nominee for governor, supported the act, writing, “Employers should not be allowed to use AI to decide whether someone is fired, demoted, loses regular hours, or is shut out of the program they rely on for income.” Yet employers remain in the review chain, while workers’ protections stop short of the gig-worker language removed from the bill. The machinery may need a human signature. The workplace hierarchy remains.