California Vetoes 'No Robo Bosses Act' - Workers Won't Get Notice When AI Fires Them

California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the "No Robo Bosses Act" on October 13, 2025, killing legislation that would have made California the first state to ban employers from using AI alone to discipline or fire workers.

The bill, formally known as SB 7, was backed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, and would have required employers to give written notice when AI systems made employment decisions.

Labor unions argued that "bosses should have souls" and warned against unchecked "robo-bosses" making termination decisions without human oversight.

Newsom sided with business groups instead, citing concerns about $1 billion in compliance costs and claiming the bill was "too broad" because it covered basic scheduling software.

Translation: Protecting workers from algorithmic firing was deemed too expensive for businesses. So California workers will continue to be disciplined, demoted, and terminated by AI systems without human review or even notification that AI made the decision.

What the Bill Would Have Done

SB 7 aimed to establish three core protections:

1. Ban on AI-Only Discipline and Termination

The bill would have prevented employers from relying "solely" on automated decision systems to make disciplinary decisions or terminate employment. A human would have to review and approve the decision.

2. Mandatory Written Notice

Employers would be required to provide written notice to employees and job applicants when AI systems were used in employment-related decisions, including hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination.

3. Union Protections

The legislation would have restricted AI use from interfering with union organizing rights, predicting worker behavior, or inferring protected characteristics like religion or union affiliation.

These aren't radical demands. They're basic transparency requirements and minimal human oversight of automated systems that can destroy someone's livelihood.

And California - supposedly the most progressive state on tech regulation and labor rights - couldn't even pass this bare-minimum protection.

Labor's Argument: "Bosses Should Have Souls"

Labor unions backing SB 7 emphasized a simple principle: Human decisions that affect someone's employment should involve actual humans, not just algorithms.

The phrase "bosses should have souls" captured the concern that fully automated employment decisions lack accountability, empathy, and the ability to understand context that might explain behavior flagged by AI systems.

Imagine being fired because an AI system flagged your productivity metrics as below threshold, without any human manager considering:

• You were training new team members that week (which lowered your individual output)
• You were dealing with a family emergency
• The AI's productivity model doesn't account for the type of work you were actually doing
• The system had incomplete or inaccurate data

Humans can evaluate context. Algorithms can't. SB 7 would have required a human to review the AI's recommendation before ending someone's employment.

That seems reasonable. Newsom disagreed.

Newsom's Veto: Three Reasons (All Bad)

Governor Newsom identified three primary concerns in his veto letter. Let's examine them:

Reason 1: "Overly Broad Requirements"

Newsom argued the bill imposed "unfocused notification requirements" on businesses using even routine digital tools like basic scheduling or workflow management software.

He claimed it failed to distinguish between high-risk algorithmic tools (like AI-driven termination systems) and low-risk administrative technologies.

This is the "think of the small businesses" argument. But here's the problem: The bill specifically targeted automated systems making employment decisions, not every piece of scheduling software.

If your scheduling software is sophisticated enough to autonomously fire workers based on attendance algorithms, maybe it should require disclosure and human oversight. If it's just a calendar tool, it wouldn't have been covered.

This objection reads like industry lobby talking points repackaged as policy concern.

Reason 2: "Regulatory Duplication"

Newsom's veto letter referenced California's new Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT) regulations from the Privacy Protection Agency, which already address automated workplace decision-making through notice, access rights, and opt-out requirements.

So workers are already protected, the argument goes. SB 7 would just create duplicate regulations.

Except: The ADMT regulations don't prohibit AI-only terminations. They require disclosure in some contexts, but they don't ban automated firing without human review.

SB 7 would have gone further by requiring human involvement in employment decisions. That's not duplication - it's a stronger protection that the existing regulations don't provide.

Reason 3: "Business Impact"

Industry groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce and Consumer Technology Association, warned that SB 7 could cost employers over $1 billion in compliance costs and discourage technology adoption.

And there it is. The real reason: It would cost businesses money to have humans review AI-driven firing decisions.

Having actual human oversight of employment terminations is expensive. Fully automated systems are cheaper. So California sided with cost savings over worker protection.

What This Means In Practice

With SB 7 vetoed, California employers can continue to use AI systems to make termination decisions without human review and without notifying workers that an algorithm made the call.

You could be fired because:

• An AI productivity tracker flagged you as underperforming
• A workplace surveillance system detected "suspicious" behavior patterns
• An attendance algorithm decided you had too many tardies (even if approved by your manager)
• A predictive model concluded you were a "flight risk" and preemptively terminated you
• An AI system inferred characteristics about you (union sympathies, political views, disability status) and recommended termination

And you would never know an AI made that decision. No human would be required to review it. You'd just receive a termination notice with whatever reason HR decided to document.

That's the world California just chose to preserve.

The Existing ADMT Regulations (And Why They're Not Enough)

Newsom's veto letter emphasized that California Privacy Protection Agency's ADMT regulations already provide workplace protections.

Those regulations, finalized in July 2025 and taking effect January 1, 2027, require businesses using automated decision-making technologies to:

• Conduct risk assessments and cybersecurity audits
• Provide notice when ADMT is used
• Allow access to information about the automated decisions
• In some cases, provide opt-out rights

But notice what's missing: There's no requirement for human review of automated termination decisions.

The ADMT regulations are transparency rules. They say "you have to tell people you're using AI." SB 7 was a substantive protection. It said "you can't let AI fire people without a human reviewing the decision."

Those are fundamentally different types of protections. And only one of them - the weaker transparency requirement - survived.

What Happens Next (Probably Nothing Good)

Labor advocates say they'll try again with revised legislation in 2026 to address Newsom's stated concerns.

Which means they'll probably narrow the bill to focus only on high-stakes decisions (termination, major discipline) and exclude the "basic scheduling software" that Newsom claimed was caught in the original version.

And then business groups will object again. And the revised bill will get watered down further. And eventually, if anything passes, it'll be so limited that it won't meaningfully protect workers from algorithmic termination.

That's how worker protection legislation dies: Death by a thousand industry objections.

Meanwhile, companies are deploying increasingly sophisticated AI systems to evaluate worker performance, predict behavior, and make employment decisions. The technology is accelerating. The regulations aren't.

The Port Automation Veto (Also Bad)

SB 7 wasn't the only worker protection Newsom vetoed in October 2025. He also killed legislation that would have blocked state funding for port automation projects.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union supported that bill, stating: "When a state uses taxpayer money to subsidize automation that replaces human labor, it's not innovation, it's corporate welfare."

Newsom vetoed it anyway. California will continue using taxpayer funds to help companies automate away union jobs.

So in the same month, California's governor rejected both:

• Protections against AI making termination decisions
• Limits on taxpayer funding for automation that eliminates jobs

That's not pro-worker policy. That's choosing corporate interests over labor protection while maintaining a progressive reputation.

What This Means For Workers Everywhere

California's veto of the No Robo Bosses Act matters far beyond California.

When the most progressive state on tech regulation won't pass basic protections against AI-driven terminations, it signals to every other state: Don't even try.

If California - with its powerful tech economy, strong labor movement, and Democratic supermajority - sides with business groups over worker protection, what chance do labor advocates have in more conservative states?

The answer: None. This veto effectively kills the national momentum for regulating AI in employment decisions.

Companies now know they can deploy automated hiring, discipline, and termination systems without worrying about state-level regulation requiring human oversight. Even in California, the supposed tech regulation leader, they got a pass.

The Bottom Line

California had the chance to require human oversight when AI systems fire workers. Labor unions said "bosses should have souls." Business groups said it would cost $1 billion in compliance.

Governor Newsom sided with the billion-dollar cost argument.

So California workers - and by extension, workers nationwide - will continue to be evaluated, disciplined, and terminated by algorithmic systems with no requirement for human review and often no notification that AI made the decision.

The veto sent three clear messages:

1. Business costs matter more than worker protection. Even minimal requirements like "have a human review the AI's firing decision" are considered too expensive.

2. Algorithmic management is here to stay. If California won't regulate it, no one will. Companies are free to deploy increasingly sophisticated AI systems to manage and terminate workers.

3. "Progressive" doesn't mean pro-worker anymore. Newsom's veto demonstrates that even Democratic politicians in labor-friendly states will prioritize tech industry interests over worker protections when forced to choose.

Labor unions asked for basic transparency and human oversight of AI-driven employment decisions. They got nothing.

If you were hoping regulation would protect you from algorithmic termination, California just showed you it won't.

The No Robo Bosses Act is dead. Robo bosses won.