Published
September 30, 2025
A Southern California Law Review article argues that deputizing worker centers could help relieve under-resourced government agencies and improve enforcement outcomes. Although noble-sounding, the proposal is deeply flawed.
It suggests that community-based organizations should be granted investigatory powers and the authority to inspect workplaces. Thus, blurring the line between advocacy and enforcement. Worker centers are mission-driven entities, often with strong ideological leanings. Giving them quasi-governmental powers risks politicizing enforcement and undermining the neutrality that is essential to due process. Agencies are bound by procedural rules, transparency requirements, confidentiality protections, and oversight mechanisms. Worker centers aren’t. Deputizing them creates a parallel enforcement system with no accountability.
Worker centers often represent specific groups and may campaign against particular employers or industries. Investigatory powers could lead them to selective enforcement or retaliation. The article fails to acknowledge these risks or address how such risks would be mitigated. The proposal relies heavily on the assumption that these organizations will act in good faith and with legal precision. But enforcement of wage and hour laws is complex, requiring legal expertise, investigative rigor, and impartial judgment—qualities unlikely to be present in community organizations.
The article also argues that deputization would not violate California’s municipal nondelegation doctrine. But the legal analysis is speculative and hinges on the idea that final decision-making authority would remain with the Office of Wage Standards (OWS). Even if contracts stipulate that worker centers cannot make binding decisions, investigating employers and collecting evidence could have coercive and harassing effects. Employers may feel pressured to settle or comply with demands outside of formal adjudication, raising due process concerns.
The article is based on the premise that LA is too severely understaffed to adequately capture all wage and hour violations. If LA agrees, the solution is not to outsource core government functions to private actors. Instead, policymakers should invest in expanding the capacity of public agencies, streamlining complaint processes, and improving transparency.
California’s Private Attorneys General Act already empowers private citizens to bring enforcement actions as if they are acting for the state. The city of L.A. should not compound that unfortunate policy by deputizing biased, untrustworthy worker centers to act on its behalf.
About the author
Marc Freedman
Marc Freedman is vice president of workplace policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He develops and advocates the Chamber’s response to OSHA matters; FLSA issues such as overtime, minimum wage, and independent contractors; paid leave issues; EEOC, and other labor and workplace issues.
