A California bill that would establish a council to regulate everything from wages to working conditions at fast food restaurants is not expected to be decided by state voters until November 2024. However, similar legislation is already appearing elsewhere, igniting a debate about how far unions and politicians should go to protect workers’ rights, and whether workers are even at the centre of this battle.
AB 257, also known as the Fast Food Recovery Act, would give a 10-member appointed “Fast Food Council” broad authority over large national fast food and fast casual restaurants in California. Its powers would include the ability to compel restaurants to raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour and then provide annual raises of up to 3.5%. It could also establish minimum standards for working conditions, maximum working hours, security, and other factors.
The bill was signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September and is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023, but the restaurant group Save Local Restaurants collected a million signatures to put it to a vote next year.
Even if a bill has been signed into law in California, opponents can gather enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot and allow voters to decide the final outcome. California attempted to proceed with the law anyway, claiming that it had the authority to do so because all of the signatures had not yet been validated.
Save Local Restaurants immediately filed a lawsuit, claiming that no law has ever been passed while voter signatures were being validated. The law was halted, and signatures were validated after the courts agreed.
However, the bill’s impact had already been felt outside of the state.
On Jan. 20, Virginia House delegate Irene Shin introduced HB 2478, a bill to create a similar policy board within the executive branch of government in her state. On January 30, New York state senator Jabari Brisport introduced S3155, a fast food franchisor accountability act.
The California FAST Act would “have a significant and long-term impact on the California restaurant industry, as well as likely restaurants and other industries in and outside of California,” according to a law firm analysis of the law published last September. “Sponsors of the legislation have stated unequivocally that California is a starting point.”
California’s fast food bill inspires Virginia and New York to follow suit, raising the stakes for everyone.
Medora Lee, TODAY IN THE UNITED STATES
A California bill that would establish a council to regulate everything from wages to working conditions at fast food restaurants is not expected to be decided by state voters until November 2024. However, similar legislation is already appearing elsewhere, igniting a debate about how far unions and politicians should go to protect workers’ rights, and whether workers are even at the centre of this battle.
AB 257, also known as the Fast Food Recovery Act, would give a 10-member appointed “Fast Food Council” broad authority over large national fast food and fast casual restaurants in California. Its powers would include the ability to compel restaurants to raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour and then provide annual raises of up to 3.5%. It could also establish minimum standards for working conditions, maximum working hours, security, and other factors.
The bill was signed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in September and is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023, but the restaurant group Save Local Restaurants collected a million signatures to put it to a vote next year.
Even if a bill has been signed into law in California, opponents can gather enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot and allow voters to decide the final outcome. California attempted to proceed with the law anyway, claiming that it had the authority to do so because all of the signatures had not yet been validated.
Save Local Restaurants immediately filed a lawsuit, claiming that no law has ever been passed while voter signatures were being validated. The law was halted, and signatures were validated after the courts agreed.
However, the bill’s impact had already been felt outside of the state.
On Jan. 20, Virginia House delegate Irene Shin introduced HB 2478, a bill to create a similar policy board within the executive branch of government in her state. On January 30, New York state senator Jabari Brisport introduced S3155, a fast food franchisor accountability act.
Get the Everyone’s Talking newsletter delivered right to your inbox.
Get up to speed on the latest breaking news.
Monday through Friday
Your Email Address
The California FAST Act would “have a significant and long-term impact on the California restaurant industry, as well as likely restaurants and other industries in and outside of California,” according to a law firm analysis of the law published last September. “Sponsors of the legislation have stated unequivocally that California is a starting point.”
Open competition: The FTC files the first lawsuits to prevent employers from requiring employees to sign noncompete agreements.
While supporters argue that the measures will ensure fast-food workers receive living wages and protections from a hostile workplace, such as harassment and retaliation, opponents argue that they are simply a power grab by unions to increase their numbers, rather than a move to protect workers.
“Whether you’re a legislator, a business owner or leader, or an ordinary voter, one thing is clear: California has become a dramatic case study of putting bad politics over good policy,” wrote Joe Erlinger, CEO of US McDonald’s, in a letter.
What is at stake for employees?
The law would give workers “a seat at the table to help set wage, health, safety, and training standards across the fast-food industry,” according to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents 2 million U.S. workers in health care, government, and property services.
According to bill supporters, the fast-food industry has poor working conditions, including low pay, few benefits, and frequent violations of workplace laws.
“The fast food industry has serious issues,” said Vincent Calderone, a former chain restaurant owner and Los Angeles employment attorney who is currently suing Del Taco for sexual harassment and retaliatory firing. “They frequently ignore workplace issues, particularly sexual harassment complaints. They do not take appropriate measures to stop or prevent it, and they frequently retaliate against those who report it in order to discourage others from complaining about such behaviour.”
Businesses point out that the industry already has safeguards in place, such as health, safety, and labour regulations, and they aren’t opposed to more “legislation that leads to meaningful improvements in our communities, including responsible increases in the minimum wage,” Erlinger said.
According to an August Employment Policies Institute survey of 67 economists, 93% expect operating costs to rise as a result of the FAST Act, 84% expect fewer restaurant chains to operate in California, and 73% expect franchisees to close restaurants.
