4 ms·

Does anyone understand the rationale for only applying this to fast food workers?

by timmg 3y ago

bdcravens 3y ago
Perhaps demographics of fast food hires versus other restaurants or industries? Perhaps push-back from restaurants that rely on tips?
anjel 3y ago
Something to do with sub-living wage corporate subsidies?
- gruez 3y ago
  That doesn't apply to any other types of workers?
kyboren 3y ago
"Loser, loner, McDonald's--worker". Fast food work has long been denigrated as a low-pay dirty job predominantly staffed by teenagers and under-skilled under-privileged workers who lack better job opportunities. In the California zeitgeist this makes pro-fast food worker action politically irresistible. This is actually a compromise agreement reached after an earlier bill[0] was passed and fast food franchisees threatened to run a ballot proposition to get it repealed. Basically, politics is how we determine who gets what part of the pie. Fast food workers are sympathetic and politically powerful right now. They simply have more political power than other minimum wage workers and they are now cashing in on that political power. [0]: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912
dragonwriter 3y ago
The short version is “Large fast-food chains” – (the definition in the law restricts this to large chains) – “are plagued by a bunch of common pervasive issues, including wage and hour violations, and are structured in a way that is an effective hack around the normal method of accountability for violations, so industry-wide regulation of wages, working conditions, etc., with representation of the industry, franchisees, workers, and worker advocates, and the non-industry-affiliated public has been deemed necessary, with an initial industry-specific boost in minimum wages attached to that.” The longer answer is…well, research the history of the California FAST Act, which this updates/replaces, and AB 1228/2023 (the law here), and the negotiations by which the industry referendum against the former was withdrawn in exchange for the rewrite of the latter that was then adopted.

Does anyone understand the rationale for only applying this to fast food workers?

by timmg 3y ago

Does anyone understand the rationale for only applying this to fast food workers?

Perhaps demographics of fast food hires versus other restaurants or industries? Perhaps push-back from restaurants that rely on tips?

anjel 3y ago

Something to do with sub-living wage corporate subsidies?

gruez 3y ago
That doesn't apply to any other types of workers?

kyboren 3y ago

"Loser, loner, McDonald's--worker". Fast food work has long been denigrated as a low-pay dirty job predominantly staffed by teenagers and under-skilled under-privileged workers who lack better job opportunities. In the California zeitgeist this makes pro-fast food worker action politically irresistible. This is actually a compromise agreement reached after an earlier bill[0] was passed and fast food franchisees threatened to run a ballot proposition to get it repealed. Basically, politics is how we determine who gets what part of the pie. Fast food workers are sympathetic and politically powerful right now. They simply have more political power than other minimum wage workers and they are now cashing in on that political power. [0]: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB257/id/2605912

dragonwriter 3y ago

The short version is “Large fast-food chains” – (the definition in the law restricts this to large chains) – “are plagued by a bunch of common pervasive issues, including wage and hour violations, and are structured in a way that is an effective hack around the normal method of accountability for violations, so industry-wide regulation of wages, working conditions, etc., with representation of the industry, franchisees, workers, and worker advocates, and the non-industry-affiliated public has been deemed necessary, with an initial industry-specific boost in minimum wages attached to that.” The longer answer is…well, research the history of the California FAST Act, which this updates/replaces, and AB 1228/2023 (the law here), and the negotiations by which the industry referendum against the former was withdrawn in exchange for the rewrite of the latter that was then adopted.