Starting April 1, the minimum wage for most fast-food workers in California will jump to $20 an hour — the highest in the U.S.

Starting Monday, most California fast-food workers will earn at least $20 an hour — the highest minimum wage across the U.S. restaurant industry. Yet the pay hike is sparking furious debate, with some restaurant owners warning of job losses and higher prices for customers, while labor advocates tout the benefits of higher wages.

The new law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom last fall, takes effect on April 1, requiring that fast-food chains with at least 60 locations nationwide pay workers at least $20 an hour. The means the state’s 553,000 fast-food workers will earn more than the state’s $16 minimum wage for all other industries.

The new baseline wage comes as the fast-food industry is seeing booming earnings, with big chains like McDonald’s enjoying strong revenue growth and wider profit margins in recent years. That’s partly due to menu prices that have far outpaced inflation, with fast-food costs surging 47% over the past decade, compared with an average of 29% for all other prices, according to a new analysis from the Roosevelt Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

  • Fox
    162·
    9 months ago

    You’re going to see a lot fast food places in CA magically transform into bakeries

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      It had taken many years, but finally the Adkins diet fad would be put to rest.

    • Pogogunner@kbin.social
      41·
      9 months ago

      That exception only applies to bakeries created before the law was passed - still helps Gavin Newsome’s donor without allowing other to take advantage of the political exception.

          • admiralteal@kbin.social
            91·
            9 months ago

            No, it is not “less clear cut” than you thought and there is not an argument on both sides.

            On one side you have the guy who actually owns the Paneras in question, saying they would not even be attempting to use this exemption because it does not apply to them.

            On the other side, you have the Newsom administration and the California labor agency BOTH saying that Panera could not benefit from this exemption because it does not apply to them.

            That’s the only “side”.

            This is to whom the “bakery exception” applies:

            Restaurants that operate a bakery that “produces” and sells “bread” as a as of September 15, 2023, and continue to do so are exempt from the new law.

            “Bread” is defined as a single unit item that weighs at least ½ pound after cooling and must be sold as a stand-alone item.

            The following types of fast food restaurants do not come under the exemption:

            • Restaurants that sell bread only as part of a sandwich or hamburger, but not as a stand-alone menu item;
            • Restaurants that sell stand-alone items weighing less than one-half pound after cooling, such as most muffins, croissants, scones, rolls, or buns, but do not sell bread weighing at least one-half pound after cooling; and
            • Restaurants that do not “produce” bread on the premises of the restaurant location where customers purchase the bread. Producing bread includes making the dough (typically, flour, water, and yeast) and baking it. Baking pre-made dough, i.e., dough that was mixed or prepared at another location, does not constitute “producing” bread at the establishment where the bread is sold.

            This exemption applies only to restaurant establishments that produced and sold bread as stand-alone menu items as of September 15, 2023, and have continued to do so.

            This exemption does not require that the restaurant be primarily engaged in the sale of bread as a stand-alone item. The exemption may apply even when the sale of bread as a stand-alone menu item constitutes a small portion of the restaurant’s total food sales.

            That third bullet point disqualifies Panera from the exemption, and moreover it seems to be specifically targeted to disqualify a chain faux-bakery like Panera from the exemption. It has been there from the beginning.

            The only “side” that is spreading the argument that this was a corrupt political favor is the right wing disinformation campaign using it to attack Newsom specifically and pro-labor policies in general, and those in the media who failed to do basic dilligence to discredit the complete nonsense that this story was.

            Even on places that seem as progressive-leaning as lemmy.world, we dance to their tunes.

            • Pogogunner@kbin.social
              1·
              9 months ago

              Chris Micheli, a California lobbyist and adjunct professor of law at McGeorge School of Law, said Flynn likely would have had a good case had he chose to challenge the Newsom administration’s interpretation of the law. The law defines what a fast-food restaurant is, and says it is not an establishment that “operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread.”

              The law goes on to say the exemption only applies “where the establishment produces for sale bread as a stand-alone menu item, and does not apply if the bread is available for sale solely as part of another menu item.”

              “On its face it appears that it would be applicable, however a court might have to determine what is included in the word ‘produce’ in order for the exemption to apply,” Micheli said.

              • admiralteal@kbin.social
                1·
                9 months ago

                I mean, you can say a cow is a barnacle but it doesn’t make it so. You could probably take that to court, too, but it doesn’ tmean the claim has merit or will go anywhere.

                Panera does not make the dough on site. The clause appears to be applicable on its face because IT IS.

            • Veraxus@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              Righties, being very unpopular when their ideas are presented honestly, are masters of propaganda.