[ad_1]
California bill to create council to regulate everything from wages to working conditions at fast food chains A final decision is not expected to be left to state voters until November 2024. But elsewhere, counterfeit laws are already emerging, vying for how far unions and politicians should go to protect workers’ rights, and whether workers should be at the heart of it. increase. of this battle.
AB 257, or the FAST Act, also known as the Fast Food Recovery Act, appointed a 10-member “Fast Food Council” with broad authority over California’s large, nationwide fast food and fast casual restaurants. give. Its powers include powers to force restaurants to raise the minimum wage to $22 an hour, with pay increases of up to 3.5% annually thereafter. You can also set minimum standards for working conditions, maximum working hours, security, and more.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law last September, and it took effect on January 1, 2023, but the restaurant group Save Local Restaurants has amassed a million signatures for next year’s vote. rice field.
Even if the bill were signed into law in California, opponents could gather the necessary number of signatures to put the bill on the ballot and allow voters to decide the final outcome. California tried to go ahead with the law anyway, saying it had the power to proceed because all signatures had not yet been verified.
Save Local Restaurants immediately filed a lawsuit, claiming that never before had the law been able to move forward while voter signatures were being verified. The court agreed, the law was suspended, and the signature took effect.
But the bill’s impact was already being felt outside the state.
Virginia Congressman Eileen Singh was introduced On January 20, Bill HB 2478 establishes a similar policy committee within the executive branch of her state government. New York State Senator Jabari Brisport introduced fast food her franchisor accountability law S3155 on January 30.
California’s FAST law “will have a significant and long-term impact on the restaurant industry in California, and likely on restaurants and other industries in and outside of California,” said law firm Greenberg Traurig in a statement of the law last September. I am writing an analysis. “Supporters of the bill have made it clear that California is the starting point.”
Proponents say the measures will ensure fast food workers receive a living wage and are protected from hostile workplaces, including harassment and retaliation. Opponents argue that this is not a move to protect workers, but merely a power grab for trade unions to expand their numbers.
McDonald’s CEO Joe Erlinger said, “Whether you’re a member of Congress, a business owner or leader, or an everyday voter, one thing is clear: California. It’s a dramatic case study of prioritizing bad politics over good policy.
What is at risk for workers?
The law would give workers a “seat at the table to help set wage, health, safety and training standards across the fast food industry,” said the 2 million U.S. workers in health care. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) on behalf of claims in the public sector and real estate services industry.
Supporters of the bill say the fast food industry is rife with poor working conditions, including low wages, meager benefits and frequent violations of workplace laws.
“There is a serious problem in the fast food industry,” said Vincent Calderone, a former chain restaurant owner and an employment attorney in Los Angeles who is currently suing Deltako for sexual harassment and retaliation. “Complaints of workplace issues, especially sexual harassment, are often ignored. They often take retaliatory action against those who report it to discourage them from saying it.”
The company said it recognizes that the industry is already protected by health, safety and labor regulations, and that it does not oppose “laws that lead to meaningful improvements in communities, including responsible minimum wage increases.” Erlinger said.
An August survey by the Employment Policy Institute found that 93% of 67 economists expected operating costs to rise under the FAST Act, and 84% said fewer restaurant chains would want to operate in California. , 73% said franchisees would close restaurants.
Why are fast food companies opposed?
Fast food companies say they are not opposed to higher wages or safer working conditions. Instead, it argues against government overreach in union bidding and the increased costs taxpayers and consumers pay at restaurants as a result of the law.
“Simply put, organized labor has not succeeded in getting through the front door – giving everyday workers the ability to choose whether they want to unionize.. “That’s why we demanded a back door. We urged lawmakers to introduce, pass and sign bad policies that hurt small businesses, workers and consumers.”
The California Department of Treasury opposed the bill, saying it was “unclear whether the bill would achieve its objectives.” leading to a more volatile regulatory and legal environment, which could lead to higher long-term costs across the industry.”
Some economists predict that consumers already suffering from high inflation could end up paying 20% more for food.
What is California’s budget?
While there is zero chance of the FAST Act being enacted during California’s 2023-2024 fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2024, the 4.6 million to hire 19 people to implement the FAST Act. The dollar is included in the budget proposal.
Some say this is unusual. Especially since the budget request was made on the same day that the judge issued the temporary injunction on the law. It wasn’t confirmed until January 24th, two weeks after Newsom announced its budget plans.
In any case, opponents say it will be the first glimpse of possible increases in government costs if the law is passed. “It’s just the tip of the iceberg of what might happen,” he says Erlinger. Subsequent fiscal years saw millions more thrown in.
what happens next?
Neither side can predict the outcome of next year’s ballot measure, but one thing is certain: Californians will be flooded with advertising in the fall of 2024. Greenberg and Traurig estimate that the fight will cost him more than $200 million.
“This is exactly what the fast food industry wanted,” said former restaurant owner and attorney Calderone. “This will give us the time we need to raise the money and convince voters to block this law from being implemented.”
As for Virginia’s proposed bill, he said, “This is a copycat of California law, and I have no doubt the fast food industry is already aware of it.”
Medora Lee is a money, markets and personal finance reporter for USA TODAY. You can contact her at mjlee@usatoday.com and subscribe to her free Daily Her Money newsletter, where you can get personal her finance tips and news about her business every Monday through Friday morning.
[ad_2]
Source link
