AB 1818: Bill to protect Cal State workers' raises

Josef Kasperovich has worked in Cal Poly’s architecture department as a media production specialist for 30 years. One of his two children attends the university. Even with grants and scholarships, he struggles to afford tuition.

“In a perfect world, working for a university shouldn’t preclude staff and faculty from not being able to afford their children attending the same university where they work,” Kasperovich said. “It’s [California], the fourth largest economy in the world, and they can’t pay the employees enough to live where they work.”

According to Kasperovich, his struggles with compensation aren’t unique, and he wants to see change.

Lawmakers attempted to amend previous laws they claim Cal State systems use as a loophole to avoid giving workers agreed-upon raises. AB 1818, the bill eliminating said law, is still in developing stages.

“Amongst the people who I work with and know, I’ve been here almost 30 years. I’ve never seen morale as low as it is,” Kasparovich said.

Labor and Employment Committee Chair Liz Ortega drafted the bill alongside The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who sponsors it. AB 1818 would amend a section of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act. It challenges a portion of the 1979 HEERA act that requires Cal States and unions to reopen negotiations for raises when the state legislature reviews its annual budget.

Agreements for raises are met through memorandum of understandings. They are a “document created between two or more parties explaining how they will work together to achieve a common goal,” according to the U.S. Department of Education.

If state legislation or the governor fails to fund the memorandum, the agreement will be sent back to the union and Cal States for negotiations until both parties can agree to move forward. If passed, AB 1818 would instead skip over the negotiations and require the Cal State system to compensate for the raises, with or without state funding.

“The CSU still uses this code section to cancel collective bargaining contracts and force unions back to the bargaining table whenever it decides the state did not provide enough funding,” Ortega said in a hearing. “AB 1818 seeks to remove this unnecessary code section.”

Cal State opposes AB 1818

The Cal State chancellor’s office, overseeing all Cal States, opposes the bill.

“Proponents of this measure have expressed the bill is necessary because we are utilizing a loophole to back out of contracts,” Adriana Gomez, a legislative advocate with the Cal State office of the chancellor, said in a hearing. “But that is not the case given the specific language both parties agreed to regarding funding levels.”

In the California budget for 2025-2026, state legislation proposed a $375 million budget cut to Cal State funding. Officials offered Cal States a one-time zero interest loan with the proposed budget to offset the cut and give one-time investments to employees. Protests from unions brought the proposed 7.95% budget cut down to 0%.

Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia accepted a $144 million dollar loan from the state. The funds were to be allocated as a 3% taxable one-time bonus in 2025 for Cal State staff, according to the California Faculty Association.

”Salary increases create permanent financial obligations that cannot be scaled back,” Cal State spokesperson Warren Robak said to Mustang News. “Committing to ongoing compensation increases without guaranteed, ongoing funding could expose the Univision to significant fiscal risks and would divert resources from core student services.”

Though the cut was brought down to 0%, there was a $144 million reduction to the Cal State budget due to the loan, according to the Cal State chancellor office website.

Unions voice their support for the bill

Erin Foote, support technician for the food science and nutrition department and vice president of organizing for the California State University Employees Union works with employees like Kasperovich.

“There is a section of the code that basically says that if a budgetary requirement to provide agreed upon financial benefits in the contract are not funded by legislation, it allows the Cal State to reopen the entire contract for negotiation and not just that specific section,” Foote said.

After the union conducted a survey amongst union members, she claimed that workers, including herself, felt discouraged.

“What I can say is from our bargaining survey responses, is the flexibility to not just survive but thrive, to take care of their families is getting more difficult because of the economy we are in,” Foote said. “Everything costs more, our wages have not kept pace with inflation.”

Ernesto Torres, vice president of Teamsters 2010 sympathized with staff affected by the process currently used to negotiate salary raises.

“Our future and our students depend on it. It’s not fair for the Cal State to take and manipulate legislative educational funds to benefit their own pockets,” Torres said in a hearing. “They run around and cut the working class, yet their salaries continue to grow year after year regardless of any contingency in the state budget.”

According to Ortega and the AB 1818 fact-sheet, the bill is necessary for protecting Cal State workers from “unfair and anti-Californian labor practices.”

“They keep the lights on. They keep you hot and cold. They keep our buildings freshly painted,” Torres said. “We make sure our students can learn in nice, functioning, safe spaces. We do our part without excuses.”

What happens if the proposed 2026-2027 budget passes?

AB 1818 would still eliminate negotiations and require Cal States to uphold their end of salary raises for workers. Even with a possible budget increase, salary raises would still follow the current procedure, unless AB 1818 passes.