5 ms·
Why Is Panera Exempted from California's New Minimum Wage Law?
- everybodyknows 3y agoUpcoming menu addition proposal to national management from McDonald's California Director: "McBread".
- tromp 3y agoSlightly misleading title. The exemption is not granted to Panera specifically. > Panera Bread is poised to get a boost from a bizarre clause in the fast-food minimum wage law that exempts "chains that bake bread and sell it as a standalone item Expect to see lots more franchises offering standalone baked bread...
- hellojesus 3y agoAgreed. Do you even have to have it in stock? "We sell exactly one loaf of baked bread per day. And it's a micro loaf. So one person per day gets a mini muffin sized loaf. Oh, weird! No we can ignore the law." I absolutely love this. But of course I believe any minimum wage policies are terrible.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoJust charge $1000 for the loaf. No issues with running out of stock
- sushid 3y ago> I believe any minimum wage policies are terrible Any? You barely have to peruse a history book to see countless examples of exploitative labor processes.
- hellojesus 3y agoThat is correct. I think it's bad policy for the government to disallow voluntary transactions between private parties with no third party harm.
- fortran77 3y ago"On The Historically Racist Motivations Behind Minimum Wage" https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-the-historically-racist-motivations-behind-minimum-wage/?sh=295e798811bb https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriesheffield/2014/04/29/on-t...
- hellojesus 3y agoI was unaware of the racial motivation. Interesting insight. However the point is exactly why it is bad policy. At any minimum wage, the government has structurally unemployed anyone that can't provide value at or greater than the minimum wage. It's basic economics.
- ashconnor 3y agoEasy loophole for Subway
- crazygringo 3y agoI don't think Subway sells bread as a standalone item. (And I can't imagine anybody buying it.)
- MisterBastahrd 3y agoThey do. $1 a loaf at some locations.
- mcherm 3y agoThey didn't USED to offer it, but now they may choose to.
- crazygringo 3y agoOh wow -- OK, so then it's pretty easy to imagine that suddenly McDonald's, Taco Bell, Starbucks -- they all start installing little miniature baking ovens in the corner and adding a "fresh-baked bread roll" at the very bottom of the menu. If that's all it takes to avoid paying minimum wage?
- fortran77 3y ago"The law specifies that you had be operating a bakery that sells bread on the premises as of Sept 15, 2023 in order to qualify for the exemption."
- FredPret 3y agoThey're about to start!
- japhyr 3y agoNobody would need to buy it. They'd just need to offer it for sale.
- harlanji 3y agoGrocery Stores with Delis that also have a Bakery, most likely exempted too then?
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoIt’s only for fast food so it already didn’t apply
- TigeriusKirk 3y agoThe law specifies that you had be operating a bakery that sells bread on the premises as of Sept 15, 2023 in order to qualify for the exemption.
- smnrchrds 3y agoReally? Might as well specify that the name of the establishment has to start with "P" and end with "anera".
- tromp 3y agoIdeally, any law specifying an exception whose conditions had to hold in the past should list all known qualifying entities if they number less than a dozen.
- everforward 3y agoI think any law that includes grandfathering like this should also include a sunset date on that grandfathering. How is a new bakery supposed to compete if the old bakeries have a competitive advantage due to being grandfathered out of regulation that raises their costs?
- foogazi 3y agoLocation ? How will the old bakery keep its employees if the new bakery pays more ?
- sct202 3y agoBread is kind of a broad term like biscuits, bagels, and buns are bread and lots of chains sell those.
- binonsense 3y agoWeird turn at the end of the article: fear-mongering about any minimum wage at all.
- setgree 3y agoFun historical fact: as recently as 1987, the NYT advocated against any minimum wage at all: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/14/opinion/the-right-minimum-wage-0.00.html https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/14/opinion/the-right-minimum... > there's a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market. A far better way to help them would be to subsidize their wages or - better yet - help them acquire the skills needed to earn more on their own.
- idontwantthis 3y agoIt’s an issue I’ve chosen to have no opinion on. I’ve seen studies showing it reduced employment and I’ve seen studies showing it pressured all wages upwards without reducing employment. In the end: IDK but it doesn’t seem like the best issue to focus on to help people.
- dexzod 3y agoBut doesn't it help the state overall, because more people will become ineligible for tax breaks and other diverse subsidies and programs the state offer's for the low-income households. Has any study taken a look at that?
- jstarfish 3y agoI had the same thought: 35hr x $7 = 245, x4 weeks = $980 35hr x $15 = 525, x4 weeks = $2100 At my poorest (and with 3 dependents) EBT only ever paid out $~650 a month. The gross delta here is $1120. So the state should come out ahead. But all I've heard of is hours being cut in line with wage increases. So few workers are pulling that $2100 and are presumably still on benefits.
- stronglikedan 3y agoI was hoping the "reason" wasn't political corruption, but it appears that there just isn't any other good reason.
- Solvency 3y agoCorruption? In CA? Never!
- johnea 3y agoLike with all corruption, just follow the money. I'm a long time resident of California, and a strident lefty. Which is to say (in contradiction to the vacuous BS most everyone east of AZ believes about CA) that the democratic party is a totally corrupt organmization that is not in the very least left leaning. High on the virtue posturing, low on actual benfitts to working people. Not as bad as the wing-nut south of course, but certainly not focused on helping the working class. The 2nd most corrupt political party in the US is the DNC, right behind the RNC. Anyone who thinks either of those organizations is meant to serve anyone but the wealthy is just in denial or not paying attention. It's sad to see how far into identity politics the US has fallen, and this is the exact same phenomenon with the RNC wing-nuts as it is for the DNC woke-nuts. Binding oneself to an identity, immediately disconnects one from the specific details in which they are embroiled. It overrides reality with ideals. Newsom in particular is a major source of frustration for actual leftys. He's also a demonstration that governors in California only come from 2 families 8-/
- SpicyLemonZest 3y agoAfter AB5 passed with a list of like 3 dozen exempted industries, I've started to just assume that labor regulations in California are going to have unprincipled lobbyist sponsored carveouts.
- natechols 3y agoDon't forget, they also had to pass another remedial bill to add exemptions later!
- macinjosh 3y agoNewsom is a sleezebag. Rumor is that he gives special tax considerations to his hair gel suppliers too.
- rdtsc 3y ago> Asked directly about the bakery exemption at a press conference last year, Newsom said it was "part of the sausage making" of the legislative process. Lovely. Don't look into it, it's how the sausage made, or rather, how the bread is baked. It's complicated and you wouldn't understand it. > One might also wonder if McDonald's and Burger King will suddenly get into the bakery business. Why stop there. Fresh bread at oil change places, at hardware stores, gas stations. Apple and Google will start selling fresh bread. Meanwhile Newsom will probably buy wheat and flour futures for the next few years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- crazygringo 3y agoI've long wondered if legislation should be required to have "reasonable" justifications provided with it in order to be passed -- and if not, judicial review should be able to strike it down, whether as a whole law, parts of a law, or exemptions in a law. In other words, lawmakers shouldn't be allowed to pass whatever law they want. Rather, as part of the law, they would be required to explain the underlying need to justify the law, why that need is legitimate, and why this particular law is the best solution to satisfy the need. And if those didn't pass a minimal level of muster, then its gets struck down. Because the idea that minimum wage would be exempt for "chains that bake bread and sell it as a standalone item" is just something that it's impossible to think of any reasonable justification for, unless there were some kind of emergency nationwide shortage of bread or something -- which is not the case here. Generally speaking I'm not even a big fan of judicial review as a concept, since it does seem to involve a somewhat anti-democratic element of appointed judges overriding elected representatives. But at the same time, I do think that legislation needs to have a basic level of justification and coherency -- and the governor getting legislators to insert an exemption for his buddy seems even more anti-democratic.
- rimunroe 3y agoIs this not the point of a deliberative legislative body?
- crazygringo 3y agoIt is in theory. But in practice, a legislative body may or may not deliberate. And that deliberation may or may not include reasons for some of the parts of the legislation. (And it virtually never includes deliberation on a small clause like this.) But at the end of the day, nothing has to be deliberated on. It's just a majority vote at the end of the day.
- dkn775 3y agoIt often does include such deliberations, if you watch state legislative committee videos on YouTube. If it doesn’t, often times a citizen is free to testify and raise the issue. Many of these small clause discussions go on around amendments. There is less deliberation on policies (rules) and regulations (how an agency decides to implement a passed law). There is deliberation of course but it is more opaque to the public and less record is made. Whether it’s easy to do effectively by the public is another thing.
- exabrial 3y agoGreat question... also why sugar taxes in Seattle, you know those things designed to "fight obesity", don't apply to 550 calorie coffee drinks made in town
- CodeWriter23 3y ago[flagged]
- mise_en_place 3y agoMinimum wage increases, except for my friends who own bread making businesses. Don't want to impact their bottom line too much.
- epicureanideal 3y agoIt would be ironic if because every other business has higher wages, they lose all their employees and can only hire the otherwise unemployable or lowest performing employees, and it ends up hurting them more than paying the new minimum wage.
- mise_en_place 3y agoVery good point, it is a price floor on the cost of labor. So that could very well happen. Then again, the min wage rising means that other employers will cut positions, to reflect the increase cost of doing business.
- ultrasaurus 3y agoAnother article here: https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/02/28/how-panera-bread-ducked-californias-new-20-minimum-wage-law/ https://www.siliconvalley.com/2024/02/28/how-panera-bread-du... I wonder how successful Subway will be when they inevitably claim that they were selling bread before Sept 15th. I've never done it, but I'm 100% confident you can buy the bread they make... you just might have to pay for a veggie sub without the veggies.
- xtiansimon 3y agoOn what basis are bakery workers entitled to less wages than, say, they guy at 7-11, or the gas station? I want my food workers paid more than the guy selling slushies.