4 ms·

This story makes no sense. First, Newsom doesn't write laws; the legislature writes laws. Second, the title says Panera but the article says Panera Bread and ch

This story makes no sense. First, Newsom doesn't write laws; the legislature writes laws. Second, the title says Panera but the article says Panera Bread and chain restaurants like it. Lastly, it says lawmakers are calling for an investigation into the deal, an investigation into a law they wrote, not Newsom. Newsom even pointed out that Panera wasn't exempt. https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/panera-newsom-wage-exemption-18696927.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/panera-newsom-w...

sroussey 3y ago
Clickbait works though. Even on HN.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  The problem is that it is consistent with the average person's understanding of politicians. Newsom was caught in several situations of "rules for thee, but not for me" during COVID, the conflict of interest that is congressional stock trading was defended as a right, and supreme court justices are openly taking bribes without consequences. Citizens united said the rich can spend as much money as they want to get their standard-bearer elected. Even if it's not true, it's consistent, so it's not "clickbait working" so much as a story that completely makes sense given the current magnitude of corruption in American politics.
russellbeattie 3y ago
Newsom is a future presidential candidate. Misinformation, scandals, accusations of fraud, etc. will be the norm for the next four years. This isn't a new thing in presidential politics, nor specific to either party. Politics is a contact sport, and the competitors play the long game.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  It's more than a little bit disingenuous to suggest that it's misinformation to link Newsom to a bill he claims to have collaborated on. Besides, with PG&E reporting record profits and the CPUC granting PG&E's every rate hike you really don't need to resort to misinformation. Folks just have to start waving their utility bills around if Newsom is dumb enough to run for president. I'm a little surprised his tenure as governor is turning out this way. As mayor he definitely dialed down the rampant cronyism and corruption that defined Brown's reign.
  - russellbeattie 3y ago
    https://la.eater.com/2024/3/1/24087062/california-fast-food-ab-1228-panera-minimum-wage-exception-gavin-newsom-bread https://la.eater.com/2024/3/1/24087062/california-fast-food-...
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Yeah I already addressed that. Newsom's trying to walk back his pay to play bullshit by claiming Panera doesn't produce bread on site. If you believe that, well, I've a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. If California tries to enforce their strict definition of produce, you can bet Newsom's buddy will litigate (and that nobody will like the outcome). More likely California will look the other way when Panera refuses to up their wages. Think about it critically for a sec without your partisan goggles. We're talking about a hyper specific exemption (60+ locations, sells bread produced on-site as a standalone product since at least 2022 or whenever). If it doesn't apply to Panera, who does it apply to? It won't apply to McDonald's or Subway because bread has never been a standalone item there. It won't apply to the Lee's by my place because there aren't 60 of them. Certainly Newsom and the legislature wouldn't have spent the effort to carve out an exemption that applies to nobody.
ksherlock 3y ago
Perhaps that article is not very good. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/gavin-newsom-fast-food-panera-00144282 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/gavin-newsom-fast-f... "The bill in question emerged from months of negotiations, presided over by Newsom’s office, between organized labor and the fast food industry. The two sides ultimately forged a truce that averted a ballot fight over a referendum challenging a more sweeping fast food labor law that the governor signed in 2022." The lawmakers calling for the investigation are Republicans and presumably didn't vote for it.
dilyevsky 3y ago
> First, Newsom doesn't write laws; his office claimed the law was the result of “negotiations with stakeholders” so sounds like he’s involved when it’s a success, but didn’t do nothing when there’s a scandal
- djbusby 3y ago
  One can arbitrate without having a stake. Eg: y'all come to my office and work this out. It signals the Gov cares even if not the author of the deal. (Viewing this from one angle).
koolba 3y ago
> First, Newsom doesn't write laws; the legislature writes laws The governor has to sign a bill or it won’t become a law. Just because he doesn’t write the bill doesn’t mean he doesn’t have input. He could easily convey the message, “Add _____ or I’m not signing it”.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Newsom doesn't write laws No, but he's going to lobby hard for the provisions he wants under the threat of a veto. the title says Panera but the article says Panera Bread and chain restaurants like it. Read the guidelines and tell me how many stores other than Panera would fall into this exemption. Hint: it's not just producing bread on site it's having done so since before Sep 2023. This is 100% a sleazy Panera exemption. Newsom even pointed out that Panera wasn't exempt. Yeah because he's trying to claim Panera doesn't make bread on site. The text of the law says "produces for sale bread" and team newsom is trying to claim that using dough from elsewhere doesn't count as producing. Your best case scenario is that Panera litigates this. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1228 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
westhanover 3y ago
[flagged]
- epistasis 3y ago
  Ukrainians, who have more experience with democracy than nearly any other European ethnicity due to their tradition of not having aristocracy, have a saying, that can be roughly paraphrased as: we elect our hetman, but the next day we complain about the decisions. We should always be holding our elected leaders to great scrutiny. Democracy can not operate on trust.
jacobriis 3y ago
"Stack said lawyers for the governor’s office determined that Panera doesn’t meet the standard for a business that “produces” bread “for sale on the establishment’s premises” because “many chain bakeries (such as Panera Bread) mix dough at centralized off-site locations and then ship that dough to their retail locations for baking and sale.” 1. They are claiming that because Panera generally mixes dough at central locations that they don't "produce" bread by baking it at the retail locations. It is not clear that this was their original intent and not a recently invented rationalization to obscure the connection to Panera. 2. The lawmakers that are calling for an investigation into the deal aren't the same lawmakers that write the deal are they? 3. The governor can obviously influence legislation including but not limited to his power to veto it.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  the law references a categorization in federal code so unless the law is changed or that organization doesnt file or fit under the federal code then they are not obligated to pay employees $20/hr aside from by market forces everything else is partisan pontificating or playing defense
hayst4ck 3y ago
I've read both articles, and I don't buy your characterization of the situation. The primary question I have is: "Did Newsom use his power to try to benefit his friend?" Both articles, to me, say "yes, he attempted to use his authority to benefit his friend." The article you linked, based on how I read it, says that he attempted to help his friend with his office, he was caught by journalists, and backed out because the cost/benefit changed due to journalist due diligence. Here is the bill in question: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 Here is the core of what defines fast food: (a) “Fast food chain” means a set of restaurants consisting of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services. Here is the exemption: (i) An establishment that on September 1, 2022, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread as defined under Part 136 of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not be considered a fast food restaurant, so long as it continues to operate such a bakery. This exemption applies only 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. I could be convinced that my interpretation is less plausible if you can justify that exemption in a way that makes sense including why the date matters. In the original article Newsom gave a non-answer. When politicians give a non answer, I think we have a responsibility to assume the worst, otherwise we are encouraging politicians to continue giving non-answers.
- CalChris 3y ago
  The date matters because it was signed into law Sept 5, 2022. Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Instead that explanation, why bakeries, isn't incumbent on me but rather on the objecting journalist. The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. Or maybe just "California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee" will do.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago

sroussey 3y ago

Clickbait works though. Even on HN.

hayst4ck 3y ago
The problem is that it is consistent with the average person's understanding of politicians. Newsom was caught in several situations of "rules for thee, but not for me" during COVID, the conflict of interest that is congressional stock trading was defended as a right, and supreme court justices are openly taking bribes without consequences. Citizens united said the rich can spend as much money as they want to get their standard-bearer elected. Even if it's not true, it's consistent, so it's not "clickbait working" so much as a story that completely makes sense given the current magnitude of corruption in American politics.

russellbeattie 3y ago

Newsom is a future presidential candidate. Misinformation, scandals, accusations of fraud, etc. will be the norm for the next four years. This isn't a new thing in presidential politics, nor specific to either party. Politics is a contact sport, and the competitors play the long game.

inferiorhuman 3y ago
It's more than a little bit disingenuous to suggest that it's misinformation to link Newsom to a bill he claims to have collaborated on. Besides, with PG&E reporting record profits and the CPUC granting PG&E's every rate hike you really don't need to resort to misinformation. Folks just have to start waving their utility bills around if Newsom is dumb enough to run for president. I'm a little surprised his tenure as governor is turning out this way. As mayor he definitely dialed down the rampant cronyism and corruption that defined Brown's reign.
- russellbeattie 3y ago
  https://la.eater.com/2024/3/1/24087062/california-fast-food-ab-1228-panera-minimum-wage-exception-gavin-newsom-bread https://la.eater.com/2024/3/1/24087062/california-fast-food-...
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Yeah I already addressed that. Newsom's trying to walk back his pay to play bullshit by claiming Panera doesn't produce bread on site. If you believe that, well, I've a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. If California tries to enforce their strict definition of produce, you can bet Newsom's buddy will litigate (and that nobody will like the outcome). More likely California will look the other way when Panera refuses to up their wages. Think about it critically for a sec without your partisan goggles. We're talking about a hyper specific exemption (60+ locations, sells bread produced on-site as a standalone product since at least 2022 or whenever). If it doesn't apply to Panera, who does it apply to? It won't apply to McDonald's or Subway because bread has never been a standalone item there. It won't apply to the Lee's by my place because there aren't 60 of them. Certainly Newsom and the legislature wouldn't have spent the effort to carve out an exemption that applies to nobody.

ksherlock 3y ago

Perhaps that article is not very good. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/gavin-newsom-fast-food-panera-00144282 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/29/gavin-newsom-fast-f... "The bill in question emerged from months of negotiations, presided over by Newsom’s office, between organized labor and the fast food industry. The two sides ultimately forged a truce that averted a ballot fight over a referendum challenging a more sweeping fast food labor law that the governor signed in 2022." The lawmakers calling for the investigation are Republicans and presumably didn't vote for it.

dilyevsky 3y ago

> First, Newsom doesn't write laws; his office claimed the law was the result of “negotiations with stakeholders” so sounds like he’s involved when it’s a success, but didn’t do nothing when there’s a scandal

djbusby 3y ago
One can arbitrate without having a stake. Eg: y'all come to my office and work this out. It signals the Gov cares even if not the author of the deal. (Viewing this from one angle).

koolba 3y ago

> First, Newsom doesn't write laws; the legislature writes laws The governor has to sign a bill or it won’t become a law. Just because he doesn’t write the bill doesn’t mean he doesn’t have input. He could easily convey the message, “Add _____ or I’m not signing it”.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

Newsom doesn't write laws No, but he's going to lobby hard for the provisions he wants under the threat of a veto. the title says Panera but the article says Panera Bread and chain restaurants like it. Read the guidelines and tell me how many stores other than Panera would fall into this exemption. Hint: it's not just producing bread on site it's having done so since before Sep 2023. This is 100% a sleazy Panera exemption. Newsom even pointed out that Panera wasn't exempt. Yeah because he's trying to claim Panera doesn't make bread on site. The text of the law says "produces for sale bread" and team newsom is trying to claim that using dough from elsewhere doesn't count as producing. Your best case scenario is that Panera litigates this. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1228 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

westhanover 3y ago

[flagged]

epistasis 3y ago
Ukrainians, who have more experience with democracy than nearly any other European ethnicity due to their tradition of not having aristocracy, have a saying, that can be roughly paraphrased as: we elect our hetman, but the next day we complain about the decisions. We should always be holding our elected leaders to great scrutiny. Democracy can not operate on trust.

jacobriis 3y ago

"Stack said lawyers for the governor’s office determined that Panera doesn’t meet the standard for a business that “produces” bread “for sale on the establishment’s premises” because “many chain bakeries (such as Panera Bread) mix dough at centralized off-site locations and then ship that dough to their retail locations for baking and sale.” 1. They are claiming that because Panera generally mixes dough at central locations that they don't "produce" bread by baking it at the retail locations. It is not clear that this was their original intent and not a recently invented rationalization to obscure the connection to Panera. 2. The lawmakers that are calling for an investigation into the deal aren't the same lawmakers that write the deal are they? 3. The governor can obviously influence legislation including but not limited to his power to veto it.

yieldcrv 3y ago
the law references a categorization in federal code so unless the law is changed or that organization doesnt file or fit under the federal code then they are not obligated to pay employees $20/hr aside from by market forces everything else is partisan pontificating or playing defense

hayst4ck 3y ago

I've read both articles, and I don't buy your characterization of the situation. The primary question I have is: "Did Newsom use his power to try to benefit his friend?" Both articles, to me, say "yes, he attempted to use his authority to benefit his friend." The article you linked, based on how I read it, says that he attempted to help his friend with his office, he was caught by journalists, and backed out because the cost/benefit changed due to journalist due diligence. Here is the bill in question: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 Here is the core of what defines fast food: (a) “Fast food chain” means a set of restaurants consisting of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services. Here is the exemption: (i) An establishment that on September 1, 2022, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread as defined under Part 136 of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not be considered a fast food restaurant, so long as it continues to operate such a bakery. This exemption applies only 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. I could be convinced that my interpretation is less plausible if you can justify that exemption in a way that makes sense including why the date matters. In the original article Newsom gave a non-answer. When politicians give a non answer, I think we have a responsibility to assume the worst, otherwise we are encouraging politicians to continue giving non-answers.

CalChris 3y ago
The date matters because it was signed into law Sept 5, 2022. Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Instead that explanation, why bakeries, isn't incumbent on me but rather on the objecting journalist. The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. Or maybe just "California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee" will do.
- hayst4ck 3y ago