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, w

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