The California Attorney General issued a significant opinion on June 23, 2026, regarding the state's prevailing wage law. This ruling affects workers classified as forepersons who supervise on-site laborers. The decision clarifies that the law does not require the publication of prevailing wage rates for these supervisory roles, which could have implications for both union and nonunion contractors bidding on public works projects.
The opinion was requested by Assemblymember Ash Kalra and designated as Opinion No. 25-601. The central question was whether the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) must publish a prevailing wage rate for forepersons, as defined in a collective bargaining agreement, when that agreement also sets rates for other classifications of workers. The conclusion reached by the Attorney General was that the law does not mandate such a publication.
Background
The prevailing wage law in California was established during the Great Depression to protect workers from being paid substandard wages on public works projects. The law requires that workers on these projects be paid at least the prevailing wage for their labor, which is determined by the DIR. The law aims to ensure fair compensation and promote competitiveness among contractors.
California's prevailing wage law is codified in the Labor Code and applies to various classifications of workers involved in public works. The law defines a “worker” as a laborer, worker, or mechanic, but does not explicitly include supervisory roles. This distinction has led to confusion regarding the classification of forepersons, who may perform both supervisory and labor duties.
The request for clarification arose from concerns that not publishing a prevailing wage rate for forepersons could give nonunion contractors an unfair advantage over union contractors. Union contractors are bound to pay higher rates as outlined in their collective bargaining agreements, while nonunion contractors could potentially pay lower wages to forepersons.
The Ruling
The Attorney General, Rob Bonta, ruled that the DIR is not required to publish a prevailing wage rate for forepersons as defined in the request. The opinion stated, “The Labor Code does not require the Director to publish the prevailing wage rate for forepersons as defined by the requestor, because California’s prevailing wage law does not cover supervisory work.” This means that while forepersons may supervise a crew, their supervisory duties do not qualify them for the prevailing wage protections under the law.
However, the ruling also clarified that if forepersons perform labor in addition to their supervisory roles, they are entitled to be paid at least the prevailing wage for the labor they perform. The opinion emphasized that “it is individuals’ duties, and not their titles, that determine whether individuals are entitled to prevailing wages.” This distinction is crucial for workers who may be classified differently based on their job responsibilities.
Impact
The ruling has significant implications for both union and nonunion contractors. By not requiring the publication of a prevailing wage rate for forepersons, the Attorney General's opinion may allow nonunion contractors to underbid union contractors on public works projects. This could potentially undermine the competitive position of union contractors who are obligated to pay higher rates as per their collective bargaining agreements.
Furthermore, the decision reinforces the notion that the prevailing wage law is focused on protecting manual laborers rather than supervisory roles. This interpretation aligns with the historical context of the law, which was designed to ensure fair wages for workers engaged in physical labor, particularly during a time of economic hardship.
Labor unions and advocates for workers’ rights may view this ruling as a setback, as it could diminish the protections afforded to workers in supervisory roles. The opinion highlights a need for potential legislative adjustments to address these concerns and ensure that the prevailing wage law remains effective in promoting fair labor practices.
What's Next
The ruling can be subject to further legal scrutiny or appeal, although specific details regarding potential appeals were not provided in the opinion. There may also be discussions among lawmakers regarding adjustments to the prevailing wage law to better encompass supervisory roles and address the competitive disparities highlighted by this ruling.