3 ms·

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

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
The date is a signifier that it is a loophole with a low bar, otherwise something more directly related to being a bakery would be there. Subway, for example, would be able to bake a few bags of bread per day and put them on the counter top for sell and call themselves a bakery. That's a clear indication it's not the selling of bread baked on premises that makes a place a bakery or not. > Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? "As California prepares to implement a new law that requires major fast food chains to pay workers a minimum of $20 an hour starting in April..." > I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. because if it was a corporation that would be an obvious and odious conflict of interest. Exempting a sector offers plausible deniability. Plausible deniability's purpose is to help people who want to believe something believe it. > Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Because he was caught, not because that wasn't the intent. > The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. I don't think we'll ever know, and I would need at least one example of these negotiations to believe that it's possible to make that determination. > California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee I think he had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. I think journalistic due diligence mitigated what would other wise be an abuse of office. Most of all I find the dated bakery exemption dubious and the most simple explanation for a dated loophole, to me, is that it was meant to target a single company while still retaining some amount of plausible deniability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

hayst4ck 3y ago

The date is a signifier that it is a loophole with a low bar, otherwise something more directly related to being a bakery would be there. Subway, for example, would be able to bake a few bags of bread per day and put them on the counter top for sell and call themselves a bakery. That's a clear indication it's not the selling of bread baked on premises that makes a place a bakery or not. > Perhaps you can explain why this article now, in 2024? "As California prepares to implement a new law that requires major fast food chains to pay workers a minimum of $20 an hour starting in April..." > I can't explain the exemption although it was for a sector and not a corporation as the title implied. because if it was a corporation that would be an obvious and odious conflict of interest. Exempting a sector offers plausible deniability. Plausible deniability's purpose is to help people who want to believe something believe it. > Further, Newsom disputes whether it even applies to Panera. Because he was caught, not because that wasn't the intent. > The truth is out there. The hearings were open and a record is available. I don't think we'll ever know, and I would need at least one example of these negotiations to believe that it's possible to make that determination. > California's fast food law exempts Panera because of Gov. Newsom's relationship with billionaire franchisee I think he had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. I think journalistic due diligence mitigated what would other wise be an abuse of office. Most of all I find the dated bakery exemption dubious and the most simple explanation for a dated loophole, to me, is that it was meant to target a single company while still retaining some amount of plausible deniability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability