Show summary Hide summary
A bill moving through the California Legislature could force the California State University system to honor agreed pay increases for staff even when the state does not provide matching funds — a change that would reshape how campus labor contracts are implemented and could have immediate financial consequences for employees and the system alike.
What AB 1818 proposes
Authored by Assemblymember Liz Ortega with backing from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AB 1818 targets a provision in the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) that allows the Cal State system to reopen or suspend parts of negotiated contracts if the Legislature fails to appropriate the money to cover them.
High school football week zero: standout players and key takeaways
Abortion pill by mail resumes after Supreme Court’s emergency order
If enacted, the bill would remove that reopening mechanism and require Cal State to implement wage and benefit increases negotiated with unions regardless of whether the state budget includes the necessary funding. Supporters say the change would close what they call a loophole used to avoid honoring labor agreements; opponents warn it could create new fiscal strains for the university system.
Why it matters now
For campus staff living in California’s high-cost economy, the stakes are immediate: employees report struggling to cover basic expenses — including college tuition for family members — even while working within the university system. The debate arrives as lawmakers finalize budgets for 2026-2027, and as unions press for stronger protections against contract reversals.
“Longtime staffers say morale is at a low point,” an employee representative told a recent hearing, describing decades of service and a growing sense that negotiated gains can be undone when state dollars are not provided.
Cal State opposes the change
The CSU Chancellor’s Office argues AB 1818 would transfer open-ended fiscal obligations onto campuses. In testimony, a legislative advocate for the chancellor’s office said the existing code language reflects the specific funding conditions the parties agreed to and that removing it would ignore those negotiated safeguards.
Officials point to budget negotiations in Sacramento this year as a cautionary example. Legislators initially proposed a $375 million allocation for Cal State for 2025–26; that amount was later trimmed and the chancellor accepted a one-time, interest-free state loan of $144 million intended to bridge the gap and provide limited staff relief.
The chancellor’s office says those loan terms — and the temporary nature of the funds — illustrate the risk of committing to permanent salary increases without secure, recurring state revenue. A spokesperson warned that ongoing pay hikes without guaranteed funding could expose campuses to serious fiscal pressure and divert money from student services.
How the current process works
Collective bargaining outcomes in the Cal State system are codified in memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Under the present HEERA provision, when the Legislature does not appropriate funds to cover MOU provisions, the system may re-open negotiations on affected contract items.
AB 1818 would remove that reopening trigger, effectively requiring Cal State to implement negotiated raises even if the Legislature withholds corresponding appropriations — shifting the location and responsibility for the funding shortfall.
| Item | Amount | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|
| Initial proposed funding (2025–26) | $375 million | Legislative proposal to cover system needs |
| State loan accepted by Chancellor | $144 million | One-time, interest-free bridge; reduced permanent budget |
| Budget cut after union pressure | Reduced from 7.95% proposed cut to 0% | Restored some funding but left loan obligations |
Union leaders say the bill protects workers
Union representatives who testified in favor of AB 1818 argue the current code leaves staff vulnerable to sudden reversals when the state budget process shortchanges education line items. Campus workers, they say, earn wages that have not kept pace with inflation and face rising living costs across California.
One campus technician and union organizer described survey results showing low morale and widespread anxiety about financial security. Teamsters leadership has framed the issue as central not only to workers’ livelihoods but to campus operations, saying maintenance, custodial, and student-support roles are essential to keeping facilities safe and functional.
- Workers’ concern: Salary increases can be negotiated but later undermined by budget decisions.
- Union goal: Require employers to honor negotiated raises without resorting to reopening contracts.
- Employer concern: Protect fiscal stability and avoid long-term commitments without stable revenue.
What could change if AB 1818 becomes law
Even if the state later increases higher-education appropriations, the mechanics of pay implementation would remain different absent the current HEERA language. Passing AB 1818 would mean that, going forward, Cal State would be legally required to make agreed-upon salary and benefit changes regardless of the Legislature’s year-to-year funding choices.
That shift could benefit employees by reducing the risk of renegotiation when budgets fall short, but it could also force campuses to reallocate funds or seek other fiscal remedies to meet ongoing personnel costs.
Where things stand
AB 1818 is still under legislative consideration as lawmakers finalize the 2026–27 budget. The outcome will determine whether the state continues to rely on the current HEERA-trigger mechanism for labor agreements or moves to a framework that places the financial obligation squarely on the Cal State system regardless of appropriation decisions.
For staff members juggling rising living costs and university duties, the choice lawmakers make will have immediate consequences for household budgets and campus operations alike.
