Published
August 26, 2026
For more than a decade, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) has been one of California’s most aggressive and unconventional power players, particularly when it comes to using ballot initiatives as leverage. To many in the business community, the union has repeatedly leveraged California's ballot initiative system to extract concessions from employers/
The Union has embraced filing ballot initiatives not necessarily to pass them, but to drag industries to the negotiating table.
Industries targeted by SEIU-UHW often find themselves forced into costly defensive campaigns simply to avoid regulatory changes that may never have been intended to pass
Transforming the initiative process that was designed as a tool of direct democracy into a high‑pressure bargaining arena dominated by whichever side is willing to spend more.
SEIU-UHW’s multi‑year battle with the dialysis industry is a good example. Over three election cycles, the union has spent tens of millions on ballot initiatives that would impose new regulations on dialysis clinics. The industry responded with nearly $300 million in spending to defeat the measures.
Overnight, companies like DaVita dedicated millions of dollars to campaigns and legislative races to defend themselves—money that can’t be spent to help patients.
SEIU-UHW’s latest move is a sweeping wealth tax targeting high‑net‑worth Californians. The proposal, which would tax assets like investment holdings, art, and luxury goods, has drawn fierce backlash, including from Governor Gavin Newsom who has asserted that the initiative would drive capital and wealthy residents out of California, destabilize state revenues, hurt innovation-driven industries, and invite costly legal challenges.
Many countries that experimented with broad net wealth taxes later repealed them after they raised relatively little revenue and proved difficult to administer. France, for example, abolished its comprehensive wealth tax in 2018 and replaced it with a much narrower real‑estate‑only tax.
Many in the business community also worry about the timing. California is navigating budget deficits, high costs, and the steady outflow of top earners. A wealth tax risks accelerating those trends.
This wealth tax push feels like yet another high‑risk gambit that could deter investment, destabilize industries, and intensify California’s already charged political climate, thus posing long‑lasting harm to the state’s business environment and threatening the economic foundation on which California’s competitiveness depends.
If a single union can place such a sweeping measure on the ballot, what guardrails remain?
About the author
Michael Billet
Michael Billet, director of policy research for Employment Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, keeps members and internal Chamber policy staff abreast of pending labor, immigration, and health care legislation, as well as federal regulatory and subregulatory activities. He is also responsible for planning the Chamber’s annual workplace and community wellness forum.
