California's ‘No Robo Bosses Act' advances, taking aim at artificial intelligence in the workplace
As artificial intelligence gives new, powerful tools to employers seeking to streamline hiring and monitor workers, a bill is advancing through the California Legislature to address fears that the technology could unfairly deny workers jobs and promotions or lead to punishment and firings.
The "No Robo Bosses Act" - Senate Bill 7 - seeks to impose human decision-making over certain workplace-automation technology. Introduced by state Sen. Jerry McNerney, a Pleasanton Democrat, it passed the state Senate in a 27-10 vote earlier this month.
"When it comes to people's lives and their careers, you don't want these automated decision-making systems to operate without any oversight," McNerney said.
If passed, SB 7 would bar employers from relying "primarily" on automated decision-making software for promotion, discipline or firing of employees. Any automated decision would need to be reviewed by a person who must investigate and "compile corroborating or supporting information for the decision," the bill said.
The bill, which heads to the state Assembly's Labor and Employment Committee on June 25, also would ban employers' use of products that aim to predict workers' behavior, beliefs, intentions, personality, psychological or emotional states, or other characteristics.
McNerney's office in March issued a news release with a link to a list of companies purportedly selling "bossware" workplace-management technology. Some of the businesses offer products that could violate provisions of the bill, particularly a ban on software that infers workers' mental states. Others, like Bay Area firm Braintrust, sell software that automates hiring processes, which the original version of the bill would have banned.
"With recent dramatic advances in the capabilities of AI systems, the need for regulatory frameworks for accountability and responsible development and deployment have become ever more urgent," an analysis for the state Senate Judiciary Committee said.
One AI company on the list, Veriato of Florida, markets its product's ability to analyze workers' emails to "detect signs of dissatisfaction or burnout," and "pinpoint disgruntled workers and possible security risks." Another on the list, Cogito of Boston, touts its "Emotion AI and Conversation AI" that analyze call center workers' voices to give their supervisors "visibility into live conversations of their teams."
Veriato and Cogito's parent company, Verint, did not respond to questions about their products and the bill.
Other offerings from the hundreds of companies on the list include eye tracking, keystroke recording and analysis of workers' online actions in the workplace, from text messaging and app usage to web browsing.
The provision to prohibit fully automated hiring was removed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, with McNerney's consent, the committee analysis said. The California Chamber of Commerce, leading a coalition opposing the bill, had objected to including hiring, contending only the smallest companies would have been able to comply with that provision. Employers would have to notify job applicants if they use automated decision-making in hiring.
The CalChamber, in a letter representing the coalition, argued that many of the bill's requirements are "onerous and impractical." The coalition includes the California Retailers Association, the California Grocers Association, and TechNet, which speaks for Apple, Cisco, Google, HP, Meta, OpenAI, Salesforce, Tesla, Uber and Waymo.
Missteps would "lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers," and the bill fails to consider the benefits of automated decision-making, the May 12 letter said. The groups also assailed the total ban on using software to predict behaviors, saying financial institutions use such technology to assess the risk of fraud and other crimes.
With hiring excluded from the bill, technology such as San Francisco AI company Braintrust's autonomous video interviews of potential hires, which produce "detailed scorecards along with pass/fail results," would remain legal. Also legal would be Los Angeles AI company Fama's "out-of-the-box" artificial intelligence "solution" for employers to filter potential hires by combing through 10,000 public online sources, including social media and blogs, for red flags such as "violent language," insults, "suggestive language," or promotion of marijuana use.
Braintrust and Fama did not respond to questions about their products and the bill.
The law would be enforced by the state labor commissioner, and public prosecutors and workers could file civil lawsuits over claimed violations. Employers would be fined $500 for any violations.
Asked how employers could be prevented from simply rubber-stamping machine-made decisions, McNerney said, "There's always going to be potential for abuse in the workplace - having a human being in the loop gives some sort of protection."
Meanwhile, at the national level, the Republican funding bill seeks to limit state regulations on AI. The House version would impose a 10-year ban on such regulation. The Senate version would withhold federal AI-infrastructure funds from states that regulate the technology over the next decade.
President Donald Trump's tech adviser, Silicon Valley billionaire venture capitalist David Sacks, has supported the moratorium as the "correct small government position." The alternative, Sacks said in a post on X, "is a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes driven by the AI Doomerism."
More than two dozen California members of Congress have come out in opposition to the 10-year ban, saying in a June 5 letter to U.S. senators that "the United States must take the lead on identifying and setting common sense guardrails for responsible and safe AI development and deployment," and preventing states from regulating AI "is inconsistent with the goal of AI leadership."
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
17 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Gains When Elites Downplay D.C. Crime
As I listened this week to liberal politicians and journalists wave off talk of Washington, D.C.'s heartbreaking violence as mere Republican demagoguery, I was struck by many progressives' dispiriting inability to talk candidly about the plague of crime afflicting working-class and poor Americans. This denial opens a door for President Donald Trump to speak in a language, however cynical, that resonates with those voters. Responding to Trump's takeover of policing in the nation's capital, Senator Tim Kaine, a liberal Democrat from Virginia, stated this week that crime 'is at a 30-year low in D.C., making these steps a waste of taxpayer dollars.' Although that's true of violent crime in general, the city's murder rate was lower throughout the 2010s. The Guardian acknowledged that 'violent crime is higher in Washington DC than the national average' but reassured readers that the capital is 'not among the most violent large cities in the United States today.' Jim Kessler, a think-tank executive who previously worked as Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer's legislative and policy director, went on Fox News to advise Americans to stifle their fears. 'If people are afraid to come to D.C.,' he said, 'go to Disney World, get fat, eat French fries.' I am loath to defend Trump's takeover of policing in D.C. Reassigning FBI agents as beat cops is a dubious crime-fighting practice, as agents know little of the District's neighborhoods and how to distinguish between the good folks and those who are pure trouble. National Guard soldiers, to state the obvious, have little training in police work. Charles Fain Lehman: Trump is right that D.C. has a serious crime problem And some of the nation's most violent cities— such as Memphis, Cleveland, and Little Rock, Arkansas—are found in pro-Trump states. That doesn't mean the city is safe, or that it's politically wise to dismiss concerns about crime. Trump's opponents this week made much of the fact that homicides in the District fell from 287 in 2023 to 187 in 2024. That improved number in the District is equivalent in per capita terms to 2,244 homicides in New York City. The actual count there last year was 377—slightly more than twice as many homicides as in D.C., but New York has more than 12 times as many people. When I worked for The Washington Post in the late 1990s—not long after the period when D.C. was the nation's murder capital—I reported on the city's tragically high homicide rates. Both then and now, that problem, like so many other aspects of life in Washington, was de facto segregated by race and class. The Post recently published a map of 2024 homicides, with tiny circles for the name and location of everyone who was killed. This becomes clear: To wander the predominately white, upper-middle-class neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park and the thoroughly gentrified areas of Capitol Hill and the Navy Yard is to pass through neighborhoods with homicide rates closer to Copenhagen's. But across the Anacostia River in the majority-Black Wards 7 and 8, where more than 40 percent of the children live in poverty, reality is far grimmer. More than half of the District's homicides last year occurred in these wards. Four years ago, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform released a report on gun violence in D.C. Well in excess of 90 percent of the victims and suspects were Black males, the report found, 'despite Black residents comprising only 46 percent of the overall population in the District.' Jonathan Chait: Donald Trump doesn't really care about crime When I arrived in Washington in 1996, the Post would print at the beginning of each week a news brief that reduced the preceding weekend's death toll to a terrible agate of victims' names and addresses. What I recall most from that time was talking with young men who had seen friends killed, and some of whom possessed terrifying armaments and body armor. Mothers described to me how they trained their children to roll off their bed and hit the floor at the sound of gunfire. A grieving father told me maybe it was just as well that his son, a drug dealer, had died. 'If he'd made it,' he said, 'the first thing that would have come to his mind was revenge.' The intensity of that bloodletting was not easily explained at the time—and that remains the case today. The D.C. police force still has more officers per capita than New York City or Chicago, and that does not include the federal police forces patrolling Capitol Hill and the parks. Something remains terribly wrong in too many neighborhoods in the District, and no one should dismiss that just because Trump appears to be making cynical use of that misery. I have no doubt that Trump enjoys targeting Democratic-controlled cities for embarrassment. I also have little doubt that a mother in Ward 8 might draw comfort from a National Guard soldier standing watch near her child's school. And I try to imagine having the audacity to insist to her that the homicides and the danger that are her daily reality are somehow a phantasm.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Chuck Schumer drops F-bomb when asked if Dems would back Trump on DC police takeover
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dropped an expletive when asked whether Democrats would support President Trump's bid to extend federal control over Washington, DC's police force beyond the current 30-day limit. 'No f–king way!' the New York Democrat exclaimed during an interview with 'The Parnas Perspective' podcast on Thursday. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail.' Trump announced this week he's seeking 'long-term extensions' from Congress to maintain command of the Metropolitan Police Department past the month allowed under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. Advertisement 6 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dropped an expletive during a podcast interview on Thursday. Substack / The Parnas Perspective The president expressed confidence Republicans would back the measure 'pretty much unanimously.' But Schumer signaled fierce Democratic resistance when host Aaron Parnas posed a hypothetical about Trump claiming a crime emergency to justify keeping the National Guard deployed and controlling the capital's law enforcement. Advertisement 'He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like it either,' Schumer said. The minority leader dismissed Trump's push as 'just a distraction' from ongoing demands that the administration release documents about convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'He's afraid of Epstein. He's afraid of all that, and we are not going to give up on Epstein,' Schumer charged. Advertisement Trump has maintained that nothing will stop his crackdown on what he describes as crime and homelessness plaguing the nation's capital, though recent reports indicate crime rates have actually been declining. 6 'No f–king way!' the New York Democrat exclaimed during an interview with 'The Parnas Perspective' podcast host Aaron Parnas on Thursday. Substack / The Parnas Perspective 6 'We'll fight him tooth and nail,' Schumer said when asked if Democrats would support granting an extension to President Trump's takeover of the DC police. Speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, Trump suggested he could bypass Congress entirely if necessary. Advertisement 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress. But we expect to be before Congress very quickly,' Trump said. 'And again, we think the Democrats will not do anything to stop crime, but we think the Republicans will do it almost unanimously.' The president outlined plans for legislation specifically targeting DC, which he wants to use as a model for other cities. 6 Department of Homeland Security agents are seen above joining Metropolitan Police Department officers at a checkpoint in Washington, DC on Wednesday. AP 'So we're going to need a crime bill. That we're going to be putting in, and it's going to pertain initially to DC. We're going to use it as a very positive example,' he said. Trump emphasized the urgency of extending federal control beyond the initial window. 'You can't have 30 days,' he insisted. 'We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions.' 6 Trump has maintained that nothing will stop his crackdown on what he describes as crime and homelessness plaguing the nation's capital. AP Advertisement 6 Trump suggested he could bypass Congress entirely if necessary by declaring a national emergency. REUTERS Despite his preference for congressional approval, Trump left the door open to unilateral action. 'I don't want to call a national emergency, but if I have to, I will,' the president warned. The Post has sought comment from the White House.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
California redistricting puts pressure on Illinois, New York
California's move to launch a redistricting effort ahead of next year's midterms has piled new pressure on other blue states to follow suit. Capitol Hill Democrats are hailing Thursday's announcement by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) to redraw the House map in the Golden State, saying the changes are essential to counteract a similar gambit by Texas Republicans, which is expected to lend the GOP as many as five additional seats in the next Congress. But the Democrats don't want to stop there, pressing party leaders in Illinois, New York and even Maryland to take a page from Newsom's playbook to help the party flip control of the House — and establish a check on President Trump — following next year's elections. Newsom, himself, has taken the lead, publicly exhorting the leaders of Illinois and New York to 'forget the talking' and start making moves. But behind the scenes, a similar pressure campaign is playing out. Eric Holder, the attorney general under former President Obama and now head of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, told House Democrats on a conference call this week that he's been in talks with leaders in a number of states, including California, New York and Maryland, according to a Democrat on the call. Holder is urging the lawmakers to support an all-hands-on-deck effort to pressure Democratic governors to redraw their maps as the last best chance to nullify the expected changes in Texas. 'He says, 'In the past we've played it under different rules, [but] this time, even though we've always taken a position against mid-decade redistricting, … we just can't do it. We cannot do it because there is so much at stake,'' the Democratic lawmaker said. 'Imagine if the Democrats don't win the House back and there's no check on the president, imagine what he's going to do in the last two years.' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said earlier this month that she's 'exploring with our leaders every option to redraw our state congressional lines as soon as possible.' 'We're already working on a legislative process, reviewing our legal strategies, and we'll do everything in our power to stop this brazen assault,' she told reporters. And in Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker (D) has teased the idea of redrawing the map in response to Texas, saying recently that 'we've got to consider all the options when they're trying to take democracy away.' As he weighs those options, other Illinois Democrats are encouraging him to be bold. 'Trump's power grab demands action. We will not stand by while he dismantles democracy,' Rep. Jesús 'Chuy' García (D-Ill.) said Thursday in an email. 'Every option to confront and stop him is on the table.' Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), who's running for Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) seat next year and whose district includes a mix of urban, suburban and rural, also left the door open to having Illinois redraw its maps if it needed to. 'We're all in it together, so we have to do what we have to do. But I think do first what makes most sense or might be easier,' Kelly told The Hill, referring to states that might be easier to redistrict. 'There's a lot of blocks or pieces of the puzzle, and it depends how the pieces of the puzzle fall. If, you know, we look at it and it's very important that we do it, then I would not be opposed to us doing it,' she said. The Democrats' endorsement of mid-decade redistricting marks a sharp shift in the party's strategy. For years, Democratic leaders have opposed state moves to redraw their maps mid-decade, pushing instead for independent commissions to assume the task — and discourage partisan gerrymandering — following each decennial census count. But with Texas Republicans poised to redraw their map in the coming weeks — a rare, mid-decade reworking designed, at the request of Trump, to pick up GOP seats — Democrats say the moment demands fighting fire with fire. 'Under the circumstances, you get in a fight, you've got to make sure you've got the same type of weapons, or better weapons, than the other side does,' said the lawmaker on the Holder call. 'So you can't just unilaterally give up.' The push to redraw House maps is not clear cut, though, since each state determines how they draw their congressional lines. In New York, a redistricting commission starts the process of drawing the House lines, subject to the legislature's approval. If the legislature approves the lines crafted by the commission, they head to the governor's office for signature. New York won't be able to pass a new House map in time for 2026 given that allowing the state to pursue mid-decade redistricting will require an amendment to the state Constitution. The legislature needs to pass that amendment in two consecutive sessions before it goes to the voters for a vote. That timeline means the earliest New York could draw maps would be for the 2028 cycle. The process is easier in Illinois and Maryland, where the legislature takes up the task of drawing lines. Once they're passed by state lawmakers, they require the governor's signature for approval. But unlike New York, Democrats have fewer opportunities to pick up seats in Illinois and Maryland, which already have predominantly Democratic congressional delegations. Stretching out gains in Democratic states also runs the risk of making Democrats' seats more competitive, too. House Republicans, meanwhile, have slammed Newsom's effort, arguing he's doing so because of his rumored 2028 aspirations. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' Christian Martinez, a spokesman for the House Republicans' campaign arm, said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: He'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' Democrats have dismissed such criticisms, saying the real power grab occurred when Trump asked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to redraw the maps to find five additional GOP seats. The midterm cycle is historically tough on the party of the sitting president, and Trump is hoping to prevent Democrats from taking control of the House, which would empower them to launch countless investigations into the actions of his administration. In the past, Democrats have expressed concerns that adopting mid-decade redistricting would set a terrible precedent and make the Congress even more polarized than it already is. But those reservations have been eclipsed by what the party sees as an existential threat to the country if Trump is allowed to move through the remainder of his term unchecked. Party leaders appear to be on board. 'People are very upset, and pretty much anybody is on the same [page],' the Democratic lawmaker said. 'They're saying, 'In the past we've taken a different position, but we can't come in empty handed while they're coming in with guns to the fight. 'Democrats, and certainly our leaders, are saying that, 'We've taken a different position on redistricting [in the past], but this time we cannot do it.''
