So I have no clue regarding 581. It was on the agenda before the session closed, but I can find no reference to it in the floor sessions (not that they make it easy to search for anything). It passed every committee with zero no votes, which entitles it to be on the consent calendar but I see no mention of this anywhere.
It has not “died” as it can be brought back (carried over) to next year, but for the life of me not sure why they would go through all that hassle to get it all passed down to the last vote in the assembly just to delay it versus throwing it in a suspense file.
You mean it isn’t moving forward?
I can find nothing regarding its status (except that is waiting for the full vote of the assembly). For now it does not look like it was passed this year and is still “sitting” on the assembly floor, but as I mentioned it can be brought up next January and passed in the assembly and sent on to the governor. (Remember each session lasts two years and SB 581 met all requirements to be a “two year bill”)
Maybe they ran out of time?
Edit: I need to correct my statement on an above post. The governor has until Oct 12th to sign AB1309 (not Sep 20th).
Action: 2025-09-15 - Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.
Any update on 1309? Surprised there isn’t any media or push from 2881 to put pressure on Newsom to sign this!
Sometimes silence is better than attention.
Nothing yet, conjecture that he’ll probably sign/veto it with a raft of other bills so it doesn’t attract much attention.
If I were in Las Vegas, my $$$ would be on Veto at the last minute for reasons stated above.
SB581 has a better chance of passing due to the negligible Fiscal impact.
California is still in the red budget wise in the neighborhood of $10 billion this current budget year. With a projected $1 billion of additional costs due to existing labor contracts. This is in addition to the “kick the can” costs associated with EVERY BU IN STATE GOVERNMENT Receiving PLP’s till July 1, 2027.
Welp, 1309 vetoed as of October 3, 2025
Edit: Trying to upload a sc of the veto message but it’s not going through
It’s the same message he always uses. It is fiscally irresponsible, undermines the collective bargaining process, and is unfair to other bargaining units. The legislature can still override his veto, but it’s not likely to occur.
AB1309
SB 581 is still viable.
And then you wonder, why do we (2881) continue to support/endorse the Dem. candidate for Governor every time? It’s officially insanity, where doing the same thing time after time leads to the same result. Time to shake it up in Cali! Just my 2 cents.
Yeah, but does it tho? Does it really matter which (imo) cult - R’s or D’s are leading? Ive seen both come & go for my entire life and the Fed wildlanders are still waiting, carrots still dangling for things like pay raises, classifications & Tim’s Act, etc. Only minor progress has been made for them in my lifetime. Why would it be any different at the State level? This is not meant to be an un-nicer / crap stirring comment. I’m really struggling to see any difference no matter who the adults in charge are..
There there is this that takes affect beginning in the 2026 tak year
If you’re 50 and older, you might be about to lose a big tax break
Guess it’s time to veto him in the next election. We need to unite and elect a stronger candidate.
He is termed out…
Then equally, let’s not vote him as president should get run. Let’s expose him as the politician he is.
Scratching my head on this entire thing so I had to ask GROK why the veto, here’s what “it” said…
Governor Newsom’s Veto Message for AB 1309
Governor Gavin Newsom issued his veto message for Assembly Bill 1309 on October 3, 2025, shortly after the bill reached his desk following unanimous passage in the California State Senate and strong bipartisan support in the Assembly. The message was concise yet pointed, focusing on fiscal responsibility and labor relations principles. It was formally transmitted to the California State Legislature and made publicly available through the Governor’s office website and legislative records.
Key Excerpts from the Veto Message
Newsom’s statement highlighted the bill’s intent to address firefighter compensation but underscored broader budgetary and procedural issues. Here are the most salient parts (paraphrased and quoted for clarity, based on the official text):
- Acknowledgment of the Bill’s Purpose:
- “I appreciate the author’s intent to ensure that state firefighters are fairly compensated for the critical and demanding work they perform in protecting Californians from wildfires and other emergencies.”
- This opening nod recognized the bill’s goals: mandating Cal Fire to align rank-and-file firefighters’ salaries to within 15% of the average pay in 20 specified local fire departments, aiming to mitigate recruitment/retention challenges, mental health strains, and overwork.
- Fiscal Concerns:
- “However, this bill would impose significant and unpredictable costs on the General Fund without a clear funding mechanism, at a time when the state is facing substantial budget shortfalls.”
- Newsom referenced California’s ongoing fiscal pressures, including a projected multi-billion-dollar deficit for the 2025-26 fiscal year (exacerbated by wildfire response costs and economic slowdowns). He estimated the bill could add $50-100 million annually in salary adjustments, plus ripple effects on benefits and pensions, without legislative appropriations to cover them.
- Impact on Collective Bargaining:
- “Enacting statutory salary mandates risks undermining the collective bargaining process, which has historically allowed for balanced negotiations between the state and public employee unions, including those representing firefighters.”
- The Governor argued that AB 1309 would bypass ongoing negotiations under the Ralph C. Dills Act (California’s public sector bargaining framework). He noted that recent bargaining cycles had already yielded 5-7% raises for Cal Fire personnel, and external mandates could “create inequities among public safety employees” and lead to future litigation or demands from other unions.
- Closing Rationale and Alternatives:
- “For these reasons, I cannot sign this measure. I remain committed to supporting our firefighters through targeted investments, such as the $200 million allocated in the 2025-26 budget for wildfire resilience and personnel support.”
- Newsom pointed to alternative actions, like signing AB 1234 (enhancing firefighter PPE and mental health resources) in the same session, as evidence of his administration’s priorities without “one-size-fits-all” mandates.
Broader Context and Reception
The full message spans about 300 words and was signed by Newsom personally. It was released amid heightened scrutiny, as the veto came days before the annual California Firefighters Memorial on October 6, 2025, amplifying criticism from unions like the California Professional Firefighters (CPF). CPF President Mary Camacho issued a statement calling the veto “tone-deaf,” arguing it ignored bipartisan consensus and frontline realities. Conversely, budget hawks and some Republican legislators praised it as a prudent check on spending.
The veto message is archived on the California Legislative Information website (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov) under AB 1309’s bill history. If enacted, the bill would have taken effect January 1, 2026, with Cal Fire required to submit annual compliance reports. Newsom’s decision leaves room for future negotiations, potentially in the 2026 bargaining round.