California business owners might expect the state\u2019s leading business advocacy group to oppose a politician who defended California\u2019s punishing labor enforcement system.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Instead, CalChamber endorsed<\/a> Xavier Becerra for governor.\u00a0<\/p>\n CalChamber hasn\u2019t just lost the plot; it has forgotten its mission. The group has established a troubling pattern of trading confrontation for conciliation. In these cases, it feels like the organization chooses political power over the businesses it represents.<\/p>\n For one, Becerra has a record<\/a> of defending the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), one of California\u2019s most damaging, abuse-ridden labor laws. Unsurprisingly, he was also endorsed by Big Labor, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU<\/a>) and United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW<\/a>). When asked which policies he would change as governor, Becerra named none<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t the kind of record a serious business advocacy organization should reward.<\/p>\n As California\u2019s largest business advocacy<\/a> group, CalChamber\u2019s job is to act as a policy watchdog and lobbying force for thousands of employers. Its central purpose is standing up for businesses. Lately, it seems more likely to stand down.<\/p>\n Perhaps the strongest example is from 2024, when CalChamber finally had enough leverage to challenge PAGA.\u00a0<\/p>\n PAGA<\/a> allows workers to sue their employers over minor labor code infractions. Outcomes<\/a> under this system are less than impressive: under PAGA court cases, workers take home less money and employers pay more \u2013 all as a consequence of a broken system that incentivizes abusive lawsuits.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In 2024, CalChamber and its allies qualified<\/a> a ballot initiative \u2014 an initiative inspired in part by my organization\u2019s research \u2014 that would have substantially replaced PAGA\u2019s private enforcement model with state enforcement. With the measure qualified for the ballot, labor leaders and lawmakers faced the possibility that voters could dismantle PAGA altogether.<\/p>\n But Gov. Newsom negotiated an agreement in exchange for the removal of the initiative, and CalChamber conceded. The resulting deal<\/a>, among other items, capped PAGA penalties on good-faith employers and bumped up workers\u2019 share of the penalties from 25% to 35%.\u00a0<\/p>\n The agreement offered employers some relief; an ongoing rulemaking by the state may provide further relief. But CalChamber surrendered the one source of leverage powerful enough to force structural reform, while leaving the main issue \u2014 the private litigation system \u2014 intact.\u00a0<\/p>\n What for? A seat at Newsom\u2019s table?<\/p>\n While CalChamber called<\/a> the agreement monumental and praised Newsom\u2019s leadership, businesses were still left<\/a> with a system that victimizes them. In many cases, PAGA court settlements<\/a> only got worse. In 2024, PAGA attorneys collected over $507 million. Then, in 2025, our research shows they collected over $729 million. California may meet or exceed that this year, where PAGA attorneys have thus far collected more than $344 million.<\/p>\n Rather than trying to course-correct, CalChamber has doubled down on its submissive approach.<\/p>\n For example, in 2025, CalChamber rebranded<\/a> its confrontational \u201cJob Killer\u201d list to the passive \u201cAffordability Agenda.\u201d The Job Killer list was a useful weapon that halted legislation on 93 percent of bad, job-eliminating laws. Now, the Chamber is no longer one that says \u201cthis bill kills jobs.\u201d It\u2019s one that gingerly says \u201cthis bill may impact affordability.\u201d<\/p>\n Are we confronting bad laws or maintaining a political relationship? It\u2019s hard to tell.<\/p>\n Perhaps CalChamber has lost touch with its members. The group\u2019s president and CEO, Jennifer Barrera, reported<\/a> nearly seven figures in compensation in 2024. For a trade association executive whose paycheck does not depend on surviving a lawsuit, incremental improvement may seem sufficient. For a small business owner facing a PAGA claim, structural reform is urgent.\u00a0<\/p>\n