California's New Hush Money Minimum Wage Law $20, $30, $40, Dollars Hour

California Business Owners Talk After Being Left Out Of Discussions Forming California's New Hush Money Minimum Wage Law $20, $30, $40, Dollars An Hour With A Non Disclosure Agreement And Thousand's Of “Businesses Are Going To Speak Up,” He Said. “The $20, $30, $40 Is Already Going To Cause Thousand's Restaurants To Close.”

Show more

Big Chain Store Said We Love It And Walmart And Others Company's Said Why Not Make It $30, $40 Dollars An Hour ? As All The Ma & Pa Store Our Closing And Who Can Not Afford To Pay The $40.00 Dollars Hour... Only The Top 6 Big Chain Store's Will Be Left Standing And All We Have To Do Is Raise Our Food Prices 40 To 60% As Everyone Else Is Closed Or Gone Now... Bye Bye To All Small Businesses In 2024. We Love It U.S.A. Go For It... Ha Ha Ha... ?

California’s new $20-an-hour fast food minimum wage law poses headaches for school districts: ‘Harder to hire’ California’s new $20-an-hour minimum wage for fast food workers won’t just impact consumers who have to pay higher prices for menu items, but it could also make it more difficult for some public schools to retain low-paid cafeteria staffers.

Cash-strapped school districts in the Golden State could be forced to compete with billion-dollar corporations such as McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Pizza Hut parent company Yum! Brands for food service workers who are badly needed in California.

The state – which became the first in the country to guarantee free meals for all students regardless of income – will distribute 70 million more meals this year compared to 2018, according to education officials in Sacramento.

School cafeteria jobs typically suffer from high turnover and other staffing challenges – a problem that could be further exacerbated by the new minimum wage law.

“They are all very worried about it. Most are saying they anticipate it will be harder and harder to hire employees,” Carrie Bogdanovich, president of the California School Nutrition Association, told the Associated Press.

In the Fresno school district, cafeteria workers make as little as $15 an hour, according to recruiting site Glassdoor.

Some districts preemptively offered their cafeteria workers pay raises in anticipation of the law.

Sacramento Unified School District agreed to a 10% wage increase for its food service workers last year.

It has also pledged another 6% increase that will go into effect in July – bumping wages to around $20 per hour.

The pay raise for school district workers was the largest in nearly three decades.

“We are looking not only at competing with district and comparing with districts, we’re also looking at fast food places,” Cancy McArn, the Sacramento Unified School District’s chief human resources officer, told AP.

San Luis Coastal Unified doubled the number of food service staffers to 40 after it saw a 52% increase in the number of students eating school meals.

The district prepares 8,500 meals daily for 7,600 students across 15 school sites — breakfast, lunch and even supper options for youth in after-school sports and activities.

The district has since limited the number of its entry-level positions, which are the hardest to fill, while seeking to hire more for complex roles like “culinary lead” and “central kitchen supervisor” that require more skills and hours — making them more attractive to job seekers.

“That’s allowed us to be more competitive,” said Erin Primer, director of food and nutrition services for the San Luis Coastal Unified School District.

But some districts are limited in what they can do.

In the Lynwood Unified School District in Los Angeles County, the starting salary for food service workers is $17.70 per hour and maxes out at $21.51 per hour, according to Gretchen Janson, the district’s assistant superintendent of business services.

She said these workers only work three hours per day, meaning they aren’t eligible for health benefits.

Janson says the district is waiting to see how employees react, adding: “We just don’t have the increase in revenue to be able to provide additional funding for staff.”

California's new fast food minimum wage law also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1228, was signed into law in September 2023. The law aims to increase the minimum wage for fast food workers in the state to $20 per hour, effective April 1, 2024. This new wage rate is expected to benefit over 4,630,000+ fast food workers in California.

The law defines a fast food establishment as a limited-service restaurant that is part of a chain with at least 60 locations nationwide and primarily sells food and beverages for immediate consumption. This definition excludes restaurants that sell food and beverages for take-out or delivery only, as well as those that operate in grocery stores.

Under the new law, fast food employers must pay their employees at least $20 per hour, with annual increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to ensure that the minimum wage keeps pace with inflation. The law also establishes a Fast Food Council, which will be responsible for setting minimum wages and working conditions for fast food workers, including health and safety standards.

The law is expected to have a significant impact on the fast food industry in California, with some employers already taking steps to adjust their business models to comply with the new wage requirements. Some restaurants may choose to increase prices, reduce hours, or automate certain tasks to offset the increased labor costs. Others may opt to hire more employees to meet the new wage requirements.

The law has also raised concerns about the potential for unintended consequences, such as job losses or reduced hours for some workers. However, proponents of the law argue that the increased wages will improve the standard of living for fast food workers and help to reduce poverty and income inequality in the state.

Overall, California’s new fast food minimum wage law is a significant step towards improving the working conditions and wages of fast food workers in the state, and is expected to have a lasting impact on the industry and the economy.

California's New Hush Money Minimum Wage Law
California has implemented a new minimum wage law, which has been gradually increasing since 2017. As of January 1, 2024, the minimum wage in California is $16.00 per hour for all employers. This law applies to all industries, including fast-food restaurants, healthcare facilities, and other sectors. Some cities and counties have higher minimum wages than the state’s rate.

The law was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in the fall, and it aims to provide a higher minimum wage for workers in the state. The law also includes a provision that requires fast-food restaurants to pay their workers at least $20 per hour starting April 1, 2024.

It’s worth noting that California has a unique approach to minimum wage laws, with different rates for large and small employers. Large employers (those with 26 or more employees) have a higher minimum wage than small employers (those with 25 or fewer employees). Additionally, some local entities (cities or counties) have adopted higher minimum wage rates than the state or federal minimum wage rates.

Overall, California’s new minimum wage law aims to provide a higher standard of living for workers in the state and to help reduce income inequality.

Non Disclosure Agreement Or California's Hush Money & Court Hearing.
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship between two parties: one that holds sensitive information and the other that will receive that sensitive information. The latter agrees that the sensitive information they receive will not be made available to others. An NDA may also be referred to as a confidentiality agreement.

Key Terms:

Injunction: A court order that prevents a person or company from doing something, such as continuing a violation of an NDA.

Intellectual Property: Work or an invention that results from creativity, such as a product, design, music composition, written work, or artwork.

Trade Secrets: Secret or private information that a business uses in the production of its goods or creation of its services.

Whistleblower: An individual who reports unethical or illegal activity to state or federal authorities, such as Congress, the Securities Exchange Commission, OSHA, the IRS, or the Department of Labor.
Purpose:

NDAs are commonly used in various situations, including:

Business negotiations, where companies share sensitive information with each other.

Research and development, where companies share confidential information with contractors or partners.

Employment, where employees are required to sign an NDA to protect company secrets.

Types of NDAs:
Mutual NDA: Both parties agree to keep the information confidential.
One-way NDA: One party agrees to keep the information confidential, while the other party does not have any confidentiality obligations.
Enforceability:

NDAs are legally enforceable contracts, and violators can face legal consequences, including injunctions and damages. In Australia, NDAs are recognized as legally binding contracts that outline the terms and conditions under which confidential information can be shared and used.

Fast Food Minimum Wage Frequently Asked 20 Questions In 2024
The FAQs provide general information and are not exhaustive. They do not constitute legal advice regarding your particular circumstances.

1. What is the new law that raises the minimum wage for fast food employees?
AB 1228 is a new law in California, which added sections 1474, 1475, and 1476 to the Labor Code and does two main things. First, it increases the minimum wage for “fast food restaurant employees.” Second, it establishes a Fast Food Council, which is empowered both to make future increases to the minimum wage and to adopt other minimum employment standards for fast food restaurants.

Minimum Wage Increase

2. When does the minimum wage increase in AB 1228 take effect?
Starting April 1, 2024, all “fast food restaurant employees” who are covered by the new law must be paid at least $20.00 per hour.

3. Does an employer covered by the new law have to post a new minimum wage or Industrial Welfare Commissioner Order?
Yes. A supplement to the minimum wage order must be posted by employers covered by the fast food minimum wage. The Supplement to the minimum wage order is available here. Wage Order 5 and Wage Order 7 were also updated in March 2024 as a result of AB 1228.

4. Can an employer increase the amount of meal or lodging credits that count toward the minimum wage under the Industrial Welfare Commission Orders?
No. AB 1228 did not authorize additional credits to the minimum wage. A fast food employer may only credit the amounts allowed by the statewide minimum wage.

5. Can a city or county pass a fast food minimum wage law that sets a higher wage for only fast food restaurant employees?
No, a city or county cannot pass an ordinance setting a higher minimum wage only for fast food restaurant employees covered by this law.

However, a city or county can set a higher general minimum wage for all employees that would apply to employees covered by this law. For example, a local government minimum wage law could require all employees in the city be paid more than the current fast food employees’ minimum wage. The fast food restaurant establishment then must pay the higher local minimum wage.

A local government can also set a higher minimum wage that is specific to a particular group of employees so long as it does not include fast food employees. Visit Minimum Wage Frequently Asked Questions (ca.gov)

Who is Covered by the Current Law

6. Who are “fast food restaurant employees” under the new law?
The law applies only to employees of “fast food restaurants.” To be considered a fast food restaurant, the restaurant must meet ALL of the below criteria:

The restaurant must be a “limited-service restaurant” in California. A limited service restaurant is one that offers limited or no table service, where the customers order food or beverage items and pay for those items before the items are consumed.

The restaurant is part of a restaurant chain of at least 60 establishments nationwide. An establishment is a single restaurant location offering food or beverages to customers. Off-site business locations (geographically separate from a restaurant location), at which employees perform administrative, warehouse, or preparatory food production tasks, are not counted as “establishments” toward the 60 establishment minimum.
The restaurant is primarily engaged in selling food and beverages for immediate consumption. However, some fast food restaurants are exempt from the law. (See Question 11).

7. What if my employer is a franchise owner?
AB 1228 applies to employers of “fast food restaurant employees” regardless of whether the employer is the business entity that owns the national brand, or a franchisee or licensee of that national brand.

8. What does the term “for immediate consumption” mean?
Typically, customers at a fast food restaurant will eat at a table inside or outside the restaurant, in their car, or as soon as they get back home or to work with their order. Food sold to be baked, cooked, or heated at home is not for immediate consumption.

9. If the restaurant meets the “fast food restaurant” criteria, but also offers prepared dishes that are intended to be baked, cooked, or heated elsewhere, would the restaurant still be covered by the new law?
Possibly. The restaurant establishment may be covered by the new law if the restaurant establishment is primarily engaged in, meaning it earns more than 50% of its gross income from, selling food or beverage items that are for immediate consumption.

For example, if a fast food pizza restaurant earns 30% of its revenue from “take and bake” pizza to be baked at home, but earns 70% of its revenue from sales of fully-cooked food and beverages for immediate consumption, the restaurant is primarily engaged in selling food and beverage for immediate consumption and would be covered by the new law (provided no other exemption applies).

10. Could a shop that features ice cream, coffee, boba tea, pretzels, or donuts be considered a fast food restaurant covered by the new law?
Yes, the definition of “fast food restaurant” (see Question 6) does not depend on what type of food or beverage an establishment sells.

11. Are there any restaurant establishments that would fit within the above definition of "fast food restaurant," but are nonetheless exempt from the new law?
Yes. The following restaurant establishments are not covered by the new law:

A. Restaurants that operate a bakery that "produces" and sells "bread" as a stand-alone menu item as of September 15, 2023, and continue to do so are exempt from the new law.
“Bread” is defined as a single unit item that weighs at least ½ pound after cooling and must be sold as a stand-alone item.

The following types of fast food restaurants do not come under the exemption:

Restaurants that sell bread only as part of a sandwich or hamburger, but not as a stand-alone menu item;

Restaurants that sell stand-alone items weighing less than one-half pound after cooling, such as most muffins, croissants, scones, rolls, or buns, but do not sell bread weighing at least one-half pound after cooling; and
Restaurants that do not “produce” bread on the premises of the restaurant location where customers purchase the bread. Producing bread includes making the dough (typically, flour, water, and yeast) and baking it. Baking pre-made dough, i.e., dough that was mixed or prepared at another location, does not constitute “producing” bread at the establishment where the bread is sold.

This exemption applies only to restaurant establishments that produced and sold bread as stand-alone menu items as of September 15, 2023, and have continued to do so.

This exemption does not require that the restaurant be primarily engaged in the sale of bread as a stand-alone item. The exemption may apply even when the sale of bread as a stand-alone menu item constitutes a small portion of the restaurant’s total food sales.

B. Restaurants located within a “grocery establishment” are exempt from the new law. A fast food restaurant establishment is exempt from the new law if it meets both of the following:

(1) The restaurant establishment is located and operates within a “grocery establishment.” The term “grocery establishment” is defined as a retail store in the state that is:

over 15,000 square feet in size; and
sells primarily household foodstuffs for offsite consumption, including the sale of fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods, or prepared foods”;
with any sale of other “household supplies or other products … secondary to the primary purpose of food sales.”
Primarily means that the establishment earns more than 50% of its gross income from the sale of household foodstuffs for offsite consumption.

(2) The grocery establishment employer employs the individuals working in the restaurant.

C. Restaurants connected to or operating in conjunction with the following locations are also not covered by the law:
An airport;
A hotel;
An event center that is over 20,000 square feet or has more than 1,000 seats (for example, a sports stadium concert hall, or racetrack);
A theme park;
A museum; or
A gambling establishment (for example, a card room)

D. Also not covered by the law are restaurants subject to a concession agreement or food service contract if the restaurant is
In a building or campus primarily used by one for-profit company if the restaurant primarily serves the employees of that company; or
On public land if the public land is a public beach, park, historic district, or operated by a port authority

12. I work for a fast food restaurant that is inside another store that is not a grocery store. My employer assigns me to tasks both in the fast food restaurant and in the other store. Am I covered by the new minimum wage law for fast food restaurants?
Most likely. Your employer does not fall within the “grocery establishment” exemption, so if no other exemption applies, you would be covered by the fast food minimum wage law for the work hours you perform the hours you work in the fast food restaurant.

13. My friend and I work for the same fast food restaurant chain, at different locations. My friend is covered by the new law and is now being paid $20.00 an hour. But my supervisor says I am not covered by the law. Could my supervisor be correct?
Yes. Even though an employer may have to pay $20.00 an hour to workers at some of its establishments, workers at the employer’s other establishments may be exempt from the law. For example, if the establishment where you work produces and sells “bread” as a stand-alone menu item, your work establishment would be exempt under the bakery exemption. The establishment where your friend works may be selling the same items and be a part of the same restaurant chain, but may not “produce” bread on site. Under this scenario, your friend’s establishment would be covered by the new law, and the employees at your establishment would be exempt under the bakery exemption. You are still entitled to the generally applicable minimum wage. Minimum Wage Frequently Asked Questions (ca.gov)

14. I am a manager at a fast food restaurant paid a salary and do not receive overtime. Does this law impact me?
Under California law, to qualify as an “exempt employee” for wage and hour purposes, you must receive a salary of at least two times the state minimum wage for someone working 40 hours a week and meet other specific requirements. If your salary is less than $83,200 as a fast food restaurant employee starting on April 1, 2024, you are not an exempt employee.

15. I am an employer that operates a fast food restaurant inside of a larger store, and my managers oversee both the fast food restaurant and the rest of the store. What salary should I be paying my managers given they spend time managing both employees who work in the fast food restaurant and employees who work in other parts of the store?
For a manager to qualify as an “exempt employee” under California law, the employer must pay them at least two times the state minimum wage for someone working 40 hours a week, and the manager must meet other specific requirements, including the requirement that the manager must be engaged in exempt tasks for more than 50% of their worktime. If your employee is managing both fast-food restaurant workers and non-fast food restaurant workers, then two different statewide minimum wages would apply to determine the salary threshold for exemption-the fast food restaurant minimum wage for time overseeing the fast food restaurant work and the general statewide minimum wage for the time overseeing workers not assigned to, fast food restaurant work. An employer would have to calculate the blended rate on a weekly basis, based on the percentage of time spent on those tasks.

For example, a manager who, in the course of a workweek in April 2024, spends forty percent (40%) of their time overseeing the store’s fast food restaurant workers and sixty percent (60%) of their time managing the store’s other workers would have to be paid $1,408 to meet the minimum salary requirement for exempt status that week. The math capturing this blending of rates follows:

For time spent managing fast-food operations: $20/hour x 2 x 40 hour fulltime workweek = $1,600 weekly salary x 40% = $640

For time spent managing store’s other operations: $16/hour x 2 x 40 hour fulltime workweek = $1280 weekly salary x 60% = $768

Blended rate: $640 plus $768 = $1,408 salary for that week.

16. If a worker also gets paid tips, can an employer use the tips as a credit toward the obligation to pay the minimum wage?
No. An employer may not use an employee's tips as a credit toward its obligation to pay the minimum wage per hour.

17. I believe I am covered by the new law, but my employer says I am not. Since April 1, 2024, my employer has been paying me less than $20 an hour for the work I’ve performed. What should I do?
An employee who has not been paid the minimum wage can bring a legal claim to recover wages due and possibly related damages and penalties. Your employer will carry the burden of showing they are not covered by the new law.

Generally speaking, there are three ways to present such a claim - through the Labor Commissioner, through an alternative dispute resolution system such as arbitration (if required or allowed under an employment agreement), or through a lawsuit in court. Employees pursuing the first option can file an individual wage claim with the Labor Commissioner's Wage Claim Adjudication Unit, or they can file a Report of Labor Law Violation with the Labor Commissioner's Bureau of Field Enforcement, which does not pursue individual claims, but may investigate and cite the employer. More information about wage claims and employee rights in general is available on the Labor Commissioner’s website or from any of the Labor Commissioner's local offices.

18. I am a fast food restaurant employee, and a collector is attempting to garnish my wages-that is, get the money from my paycheck before I receive it. I understand that part of the hourly minimum wage that I make is protected from collection. Is the minimum wage for purposes of garnishment the fast food restaurant minimum wage?
Yes. When calculating the wages exempt from garnishment for a fast food restaurant employee, the party seeking to garnish the wages must use the applicable statewide fast food restaurant minimum hourly wage unless a higher, local minimum hourly wage exists.

Role of the Fast Food Council in Addition to the Minimum Wage

19. What is the Fast Food Council?
AB 1228 created the Fast Food Council. The Fast Food Council is composed of appointed representatives from the fast food restaurant industry, fast food restaurant franchisees or restaurant owners, fast food restaurant employees, advocates for fast food restaurant employees, and one unaffiliated member of the public. The Council also has two non-voting members, one from the Department of Industrial Relations and one from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.

20. What will the Fast Food Council do?
The Council will meet regularly to develop new minimum employment standards specific to the fast food industry. These standards could include future minimum wage increases (although these could not occur prior to January 1, 2025) as well as working hours and working conditions to “ensure and maintain the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to fast food restaurant workers.”

The hourly minimum wage established by the Council can increase every year by either 3.5% or the increase in the consumer price index, whichever is smaller. The Fast Food Council can establish a single statewide minimum wage for fast food restaurant employees or vary the minimum wage by region of the State. The Council’s meetings will be open to the public, and the Council will take public comment on all action items.

California’s fast food workers are getting a raise. But the labor-industry truce is fraying Both sides billed the high-profile California fast food deal last year as a resolution to two years of escalating political tensions.

One of workers’ biggest wins in the Legislature during “hot labor summer,” the agreement in the session’s final week resulted in a minimum wage hike for employees and some guarantees for companies. In exchange, the industry agreed to stop fighting the issue at the ballot box and lawmakers backed off on even stricter regulations.

But a month before the new wage — $20 an hour for workers at fast food chains with 60 or more locations nationally — goes into effect, the temporary truce is unraveling.

As the Legislature pushes through a bill exempting fast food restaurants in airports, hotels and convention centers, Republican lawmakers who had vehemently pushed back on the wage hike are calling for the deal to be investigated, after Bloomberg reported that Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed for a bakery exemption that benefited a donor who owns two dozen Panera locations in California.

On Thursday, Newsom’s office denied the story and said their lawyers believe Panera and other chain bakeries aren’t actually exempt — a decision that could lead numerous additional businesses to scramble to prepare for a wage hike. In a Bloomberg story Friday, billionaire Greg Flynn says he did not seek a special exemption, though he met with the governor’s staff along with other restaurant owners to suggest a carve-out for “fast casual” restaurants. On Saturday, the California Restaurant Association weighed in, saying there was never any discussion of any brand seeking an exemption, including Panera. In an interview with KNBC aired Sunday, Newsom, himself, called the report “absurd.” Finally, on Tuesday, Flynn said in a statement that he will pay the $20 wage at his restaurants.

The Service Employees International Union, which pushed for the legislation, said it agreed with Newsom’s reasoning. Senate Republican leader Brian Jones called for scrapping the fast food agreement altogether.

The renewed fights have moved to the local level, too.

Some franchise owners are cutting jobs in advance of the minimum wage increase, while workers have begun pushing for additional benefits in San Jose and Los Angeles, prompting businesses to gear up to lobby back.

Worker advocates are also pledging to push for job security measures once a first-in-the-nation fast food regulatory council (another part of the deal) is in place. On Friday, Newsom announced his seven appointees to the council, including Chairperson Nicholas Hardeman, chief of staff to state Senate leader emeritus Toni Atkins. The governor’s other picks are a mix of franchisees, workers and others. Legislative leaders picked the final two members, both union leaders.

And some McDonald’s franchise owners, who have complained they were frozen out from last year’s deal-making, are retaliating against state lawmakers who supported it as they seek other public offices in Tuesday’s primary. The new California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses PAC formed earlier this year as an offshoot of prior lobbying by owners of local McDonald’s restaurants.

Its opening salvo: attack mailers against Assemblymembers Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat running for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and Kevin McCarty, a Sacramento Democrat running in a crowded primary for mayor.

“In order to protect our family businesses in California now and into the future, it has become clear that we must more actively engage in politics across the state,” Kerri Harper-Howie, an alliance board member and a McDonald’s owner in Los Angeles County, said in a statement. “Politicians should know that if they agree to carry water for those who threaten our businesses, they will be opposed.”

Holden authored the bill forming a fast food council and mandating the wage hike, while McCarty was one of many Democrats who voted for it. The PAC has spent more than $300,000 against each. McCarty’s campaign manager Andrew Acosta said business owners are “trying to punish him for standing up for workers rights and higher wages.”

The PAC is also spending in an Inland Empire Assembly primary and in favor of Assemblymember Tim Grayson’s bid for the state Senate. Grayson, a Concord Democrat, voted in favor of the fast food deal last year.

The franchisee committee has spent more than $1.8 million so far this year. That’s not much compared to the tens of millions of dollars fast food giants such as McDonald’s and national industry groups poured into a campaign account for the effort to repeal the 2022 fast food law. The referendum was ultimately pulled from the ballot in last year’s deal. But it indicates the increasing activity of franchise owners in state and local politics.

Marisol Sanchez, who owns 14 McDonald’s restaurants in the High Desert north of San Bernardino and helps run her family’s larger franchise business, said she never got involved in politics before last year. But when SEIU pushed a bill forcing fast food corporations to share liability for labor violations with franchise owners, Sanchez saw “the destruction of the franchise model, and basically … the destruction of my livelihood.”

“It was a quick jumping into action,” she said, which involved meeting with lawmakers and now, contributing to the PAC.

The joint liability bill ultimately became a bargaining chip to force a deal on the $20 wage. Sanchez said franchise owners were the “collateral damage.” She attributes that in part to a prior lack of political organizing by franchise owners.

“We weren’t communicating and organizing,” she said. “I think we took for granted that the community understood that we were not all corporate-owned restaurants.”

She said she’s always tried to offer starting wages of $1 more than the minimum wage, and had been in the middle of an expansion in recent years, buoyed in part by more Californians moving inland during the COVID pandemic. But she’s cutting back in advance of the wage hike, putting off a drive-thru remodel and slowing down hiring.

The union that pushed for the deal criticized the new PAC, but said it would be unsuccessful.

“It’s shameful for these multi-billion dollar corporations to attack these pro-worker champions — and voters are going to see right through it,” Arnulfo De La Cruz, president of SEIU Local 2015, said in a statement.

Restaurant giants and a handful of local franchise owners have also registered this year to lobby in San Jose, where the new Fast Food Workers Union is pursuing a city ordinance mandating employers provide paid time off, predictable scheduling and “know your rights” training.

The union in recent weeks accused one city council member, David Cohen, of reconsidering his support in response to industry influence. Several franchise owners this month contributed to a new PAC whose main spending so far has been to send $18,000 to another political action committee that has bought ads against Cohen’s opponent in his re-election bid.

The contributions were first reported by San Jose Spotlight. Cohen’s office did not respond to a request for comment, but he told Spotlight he hadn’t withdrawn any support and was only considering if the proposed ordinance would work.

Celeste Perez, a Burger King shift leader in San Jose who has been advocating for the ordinance, said she wants a firm commitment from council members and accused Cohen of shutting workers like her out after meeting with industry lobbyists.

Perez, 43, makes $17.75 an hour and said the wage hike to $20 in April was supposed to help her keep up with inflation. This year the restaurant cut her hours by five a week due to the upcoming wage increase and slow sales at the beginning of the year, she said, but she still has the same amount of work to do, and often deals with threatening customers.

She wants to afford to take a family vacation for the first time in seven or eight years, or at least attend her son’s soccer games, she said. “It’s really important for us to keep (moving) forward, not backward,” she said. “I think $20 is only one step.”

On Friday, the union called for a similar proposal in Los Angeles. Neither ordinance has been formally introduced yet.

As part of last year’s deal, the state’s new fast food council is prohibited from enacting new policies on time off and scheduling — and the deal prohibited cities from raising fast food wages beyond the new statewide minimum. But there’s nothing to stop local governments from pursuing other regulations, which would further raise costs for operators.

The proposals and the bakery exemption controversy are likely to be more fuel for franchise owners to fight back.

Brian Hom, the owner of two Vitality Bowls health food restaurants in San Jose, said he’s begun using his relationships with city council members to push back on the local proposal. He said he already sets employee schedules two weeks in advance, but is wary that a predictable scheduling requirement may prevent him from asking workers to come in last-minute if someone calls out sick.

Hom said he has the option to open a third store, but has declined to do so with the prospect of new requirements. He said he and other franchise owners are discussing with the company how much to raise prices in April, and is hoping that’s enough to cover the wage increase without cutting staff or their hours.

“Businesses are going to speak up,” he said. “The $20 is already going to cause restaurants to close.”

Trump is accused of making a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, a porn actress, in 2016 to suppress her story of a sexual liaison with Trump in 2006. The payment was made by Trump’s fixer, Michael Cohen, and was reimbursed by Trump while he was serving as president. Prosecutors say that how Trump reimbursed Cohen constituted fraud.

Non disclosure agreement trump
The non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) associated with Donald Trump have been a topic of controversy and scrutiny over the years. Here’s a summary of the key points:

The Trump campaign and Trump Organization have used NDAs to silence former employees, contractors, and associates from speaking publicly about their experiences and knowledge of Trump’s business dealings and personal life.

The NDAs have been criticized for being overly broad and restrictive, potentially violating the First Amendment rights of those who signed them.
In 2016, the Trump campaign asked its staff to sign NDAs that included a non-disparagement clause, which prohibited them from making any negative comments about Trump or his campaign.

In 2019, it was reported that Trump had required doctors and staff at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to sign NDAs before they could be involved in his treatment.

In 2020, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump campaign, alleging that the NDAs were overly restrictive and violated the rights of former employees. The lawsuit was settled in 2023, with the Trump campaign agreeing to void the NDAs and allow former staff to speak publicly about their experiences.

The Trump Organization has also used NDAs to silence former employees and contractors who have spoken out about their experiences working for Trump. For example, Omarosa Manigault Newman, a former Trump aide, was sued by the Trump campaign for allegedly violating an NDA after she wrote a book about her time in the White House.

The use of NDAs by Trump has been criticized for its potential to silence whistleblowers and stifle free speech. It has also raised concerns about the potential for Trump to use NDAs to cover up wrongdoing or unethical behavior.

It’s worth noting that the use of NDAs is not unique to Trump, and many companies and organizations use them to protect confidential information and maintain a positive public image. However, the controversy surrounding Trump’s use of NDAs has highlighted the potential risks and consequences of using these agreements to silence individuals and stifle free speech.

Non-Disclosure Agreements Or Trump Hush Money Trial: Trump, the Stormy Daniels NDA, and the Future of NDAs Professor Mark Fenster talks about non-disclosure agreements. We will take a look at former President Trump's use of NDAs, and the future of these types of agreements.

Fast food workers are losing their jobs in California as new minimum wage law takes effect
Among the chains announcing cuts ahead of a $4 increase to the minimum wage in California are Pizza Hut and Round Table Pizza. The state's minimum wage will rise to $20 on April 1, 2024

An earlier version of this story attributed the combined number of eliminated positions to a single company. The story has been updated to reflect some of the anticipated cuts at individual employers.

Fast food workers are losing their jobs in California as more restaurant chains prepare to meet a new $20 minimum wage set to go into effect next week.

Restaurants making cuts are mostly pizzerias, according to a report published by The Wall Street Journal. Multiple businesses have plans to axe hundreds of jobs, as well as cut back hours and freeze hiring, the report shows.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Fast Act back in September to require fast food chains with 60 or more locations nationwide to meet that wage increase after labor unions fought for it alongside the healthcare industry, which will also see a boost to earnings in June.

"This is a big deal," Newsom said alongside union members in September. "That's 80% of the workforce."

Pizza Hut announced cuts to more than 1,200 delivery jobs in December, previous reporting by USA TODAY shows. Some Pizza Hut franchises in California also filed notices with the state saying they were discontinuing their delivery services entirely, according to Fox Business.

"Where select California franchisees have elected to make changes to their staffing approach, access to delivery service will continue to be available via Pizza Hut’s mobile app, website and phone ordering and the customer ordering experience will remain consistent," a Pizza Hut spokesperson told USA TODAY Wednesday.

Excalibur Pizza, a franchisee of Round Table Pizza, has plans to cut 73 driver jobs in April, which amounts to 21% of its workforce, the company confirmed with USA TODAY Wednesday.

"The franchisee is transferring their delivery services to third-party. While it is unfortunate, we look at this as a transfer of jobs," a company rep told USA TODAY. "As you know, many California restaurant operators are following the same approach due to rising operating costs."

No exemptions, Newsom says
The legislation indicated that businesses that “feature ice cream, coffee, boba tea, pretzels, or donuts” could meet the definition of a “fast food restaurant covered by the law," according to The National Law Review's breakdown of the bill. The law could extend to similar businesses that provide things like sweets and drinks.

Greg Flynn, who has monopoly over Panera franchises in California, tried to get out of the state's new mandate earlier this year, according to Bloomberg, holding fast to a loophole that restaurants making in-house bread do not have to boost employee earnings.

Newsom's office called the claim "absurd," telling the Los Angeles Times that the restaurant chain would see no such exemption.

Chipotle's CFO told Yahoo Finance that the company will be forced to increase their prices to comply with the minimum wage increase.

A Starbucks spokesperson shared a statement with USA TODAY on Thursday saying the company will "continue to make improvements to their partners' experience and compensation.”

Combined with benefits, Starbucks' current comprehensive compensation package for all U.S. hourly partners totals an average of $30 per hour.

“We believe that success is best when it is shared and this extends to our partners at all levels in California," the spokesperson shared.

The coffee chain recently closed seven of its stores in the state of California, USA TODAY previously reported.

Outrage over California’s new fast-food minimum wage is hard to stomach
When it comes to the fast-food industry, we've made it normal to equate cheap and disposable food with cheap and disposable workers.

Ingrid Vilorio, a cook at a Jack in the Box restaurant in Hayward, California, is getting a raise this week, courtesy of a state law that took effect Monday boosting the wages of fast-food workers in the state to a minimum of $20 an hour. The extra money, she told me, would not go for luxuries. It would, instead, be used for groceries to feed her 9-year-old son.

Sounds great, no? Not according to a lot of pundits, who are quick to proclaim a jobs disaster for the state’s half a million fast-food workers. Consider the USA Today columnist Ingrid Jacques who tweeted out a picture last week of self-order kiosks at a McDonald’s at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with the words “This is what happens when the min wage is too high.” She was apparently unaware that self-service ordering has been in place at this particular location since the local minimum wage was less than $11 per hour for airport workers, or that companies seek to automate to cut costs regardless of how high the cost of labor is. Then there’s the always conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, in which a headline about California’s new law proclaimed it “crazy.”

Au contraire. What’s crazy is that here in the United States, we are captives to a turbocapitalist narrative that questions even the most miniscule gains for workers, while giving egregious corporate greed-flation a pass.

This is especially true when it comes to the fast-food industry, where it’s normalized to equate cheap and disposable food with cheap and disposable workers. All too many of us are stuck in some decades-old memory loop, recalling an era when a crew of mostly teenagers manned fast-food counters in the evenings after high school. That’s not been true for decades. According to Tia Koonse, legal and policy research manager at the UCLA Labor Center, well over half of California’s fast-food workers are people of color and over 25.

The California law is a response to the reality of who is really cooking and serving up that burger with a side of fries and raises their hourly pay $4 above the state’s $16 an hour minimum wage. (It is worth noting that it is not equally large a boost for those working in the state’s most prominent cities. San Francisco’s minimum wage, for example, is set to increase to $18.67 an hour July 1.) At the same time, the law sets up a state council made up of both workers and those representing the fast-food industry who can determine future pay increases and other workplace initiatives.

But workers like Vilorio are too busy earning a living to blast your inbox with press releases. Instead, you get people like Jacques and various restaurant industry lobbying groups pushing claims that the gains for workers equals a loss not just for consumers, but also for the employees themselves. The only way to pay the bill for better fast-food wages, they proclaim, is to raise prices and cut workers’ hours and jobs.

But there’s lots that gets jettisoned when this story is told. For starters, California’s been raising its minimum wage for the better part of a decade. Over that period of time, Koonse said, "fast food has actually gained employment." She said, "California has added 142,000 jobs to the fast food industry since minimum wage started going up in 2015."

Moreover, labor is far from the only expense faced by fast-food restaurants. Where are the pundits asking why McDonald’s raised the royalty fees that franchise owners need to pay the corporate parent last year? What about the marketing fees — which can total 1% of revenues — that name brands charge those owning franchises?

Few doomsayers point out that as prices at many fast-food establishments rose at double the rate of inflation over the past decade, profits at corporate giants such as Domino’s and Chipotle remained quite healthy. Industry profits, in turn, are fueling share buybacks, fattening the wallets of the richest 1%. The Roosevelt Institute recently calculated that the 10 largest publicly traded fast-food corporations spent $6.1 billion on share repurchases last year, a sum significantly greater than the estimated $4.6 billion the California pay boost will cost annually.

The majority of people in the United States who receive benefits like food stamps are people who have paid employment. They still don’t earn enough to get by. That’s the reality that fuels the fight for a $20-an-hour living wage. “The ideal that this country once had is that you get up and go to work every day and work hard, you should be able to live on what you earn and not struggling to make ends meet,” Rick Wartzman, author of “Still Broke,” told me.

Yes, food prices at your favorite fast-food joint might well go up, at least in California. But that’s not because an iron law of nature demands it. It’s because fast-food corporations and those who own their franchises might well choose to — literally — pass the buck.

For decades, we’ve been sold the narrative whopper about how a prosperous economy that prioritizes the needs of big business over people will leave all of us better off. But it’s just not so. This tale has given us record-breaking inequality and a society in which Americans are, on average, unhappier than their international peers. We’ve been treating the people who provide us with things like inexpensive fast food as if their labor isn’t labor. Good for California for trying to change that unappetizing reality.

The impact of the fast-food wage compromise in California won't be limited to fast food
Limited-service restaurants may have avoided an existential threat, but a $20 per hour minimum is expected to have a profound impact on wage rates across all segments and up the salary ladder.

In California, the battle over fast-food chain regulation appears to have reached detente, but the impact of the compromise is expected to ripple across the industry to all segments—and, some say, all industries.

In a complex compromise announced last week, labor organizers and key restaurant industry representatives reached an agreement on legislation that is expected to be signed by the governor in coming weeks.

Under the agreement, the Fast Act will be repealed and the effort to establish a joint-employer relationship between franchisors and franchisees is dead.

Assembly Bill 1228 was rewritten to create a modified Fast Food Wage Council that will establish minimum standards on working conditions for the industry.

And the state’s minimum wage will increase to $20 per hour, starting in April 2024, which will be a 25% increase from the $16 per hour wage that is scheduled to begin in January.

AB 1228 is described as a fast-food law. But the bill specifically targets any limited-service chain with more than 60 units nationwide, so it applies to fast-casual operators like Chipotle and Sweetgreen as much as quick-service concepts like McDonald’s or Burger King—though bakeries that sell bread as a stand-alone menu item, like Panera Bread, for example, are still exempt, as would have been the case under the Fast Act.

Fundamentally, however, increasing the minimum wage for limited-service workers forces other segments to follow suit.

Michael Lotito, a shareholder with law firm Littler Mendelson who runs the Workplace Policy Institute, based in San Francisco, estimated there are roughly 17.6 million people working in California and about 7.6 million make less than $20 per hour.

“When you have that as a starting rate in an industry like QSR that has close to 100% turnover and 500,000 people in that industry, there are always openings. That means anyone who’s making less than $20 [per hour] will very well want those jobs,” he said. “So I think restaurants that are below the $20 [per hour wage] are going to find they have a huge problem on their hands in keeping and attracting people.”

In other words, if an hourly worker at McDonald’s is earning $20 per hour as a base, then the full-service restaurant down the road will be forced to pay that and more to win that worker—and so will the retailer, the auto repair shop and manufacturing plant.

And, under the compromise legislation, the Fast Food Wage Council will have authority to increase the minimum wage each year by up to 3.5% through the year 2029.

And, adds Lotito, that shift in the minimum wage will also radiate up the salary ladder in the restaurant industry.

In California, the salary rate at which workers can be deemed exempt from benefits like overtime, for example, is based on the state minimum wage.

So to be considered exempt, workers must earn at least a minimum salary of no less than two times the minimum wage for full-time employment in California, which is currently about $64,480 per year based on the current state minimum wage of $15.50.

The amended AB 1228, however, includes language indicating the benchmark salary for workers in the limited-service industry would be based specifically on the new fast-food minimum wage, Lotito said.

So with a $20 minimum wage, it appears that minimum salary for exempt workers will become $83,200 per year for those working in the quick-service or fast-casual world.

“These kinds of dramatic changes that are unprecedented will absolutely put in play the law of unintended consequences. And that law of unintended consequences will create a ripple effect throughout the labor market in California,” said Lotito. “This could be quite profound.”

Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Association, agreed that wage pressure is likely to be felt across the restaurant sector as a result of the compromise, but the alternative presented by the Fast Food Act, had it been allowed to come to fruition, would have been far worse, he said.

"In the full-service sector, where total compensation far exceeds $20 per hour, such pressure is less clear, as these continue to be attractive jobs for service employees," he said. "It is difficult to know how quickly these pressures will cascade throughout the industry as the continuing tight labor market and differing regional minimum wages cloud the crystal ball."

Still, restaurateurs like Andrew Gruel, founder of American Gravy Concepts in Southern California, believe the compromise on AB 1228 will have more of an impact on larger chains.

Gruel, who also founded and sold the Slapfish seafood chain, opened a full-service concept called Calico Fish House in Huntington Beach, Calif., earlier this year, where tipped workers already make between $16 and $24 per hour, and kitchen workers make “way over” $20 per hour to start, he said.

“I do, however, budget my business to run 35-40% labor, which is 10% higher than when I ran a fast casual,” said Gruel. “The only way I can ensure profitability is by hitting above-average sales.”

What really scares Gruel about the compromise on AB 1228 is the creation of the nine-member Fast Food Wage Council, he said.

“I think this will eventually distill all the way down to single-unit restaurants,” said Gruel. “Having the state make decisions related to a restaurant’s largest expense will break many restaurants.” And, he added, “I will never open another restaurant in California.”

California doesn’t have just one minimum wage—it has many.
The state of California has several minimum wage laws that can often be confusing and overwhelming for businesses. In California, the minimum wage is determined by a law that links it to the cost of living. In other words, the wage increases along with inflation so workers always earn a fair wage that can help them afford to live in the state.

Employers in California don’t just have to worry about federal and state minimum wages; they’re also subject to dozens of local minimum wage ordinances. Many cities and counties across the state have legislated their own minimum wage laws that are even higher than federal or state minimum wage.

These local minimum wages typically increase on an annual basis, based on inflation as measured by the local Consumer Price Index (CPI). The state of California and many of its municipalities also specify a separate, smaller minimum wage law for small businesses with fewer than 26 employees. On or before August 1 of every year, the California Director of Finance determines if the minimum wage will increase based on the rate of inflation.

What is the Minimum Wage in California?
Beginning January 1, 2024, the minimum wage rate for all hourly employees in California will be $16.00/hour, regardless of company size. The minimum base wage for exempt employees is $66,560/year, or $1,280/week.

Local regulations add yet another layer of complexity to California’s labor laws. If you operate in more than one location, you could be subject to multiple different minimum wage levels in a single day. Get your calculations wrong and you face the prospect of wage and hour lawsuits.

Whether it’s the minimum wage in San Jose or SF minimum wage, to help your organization stay compliant with the latest minimum wage requirements, Paycor has created this chart of California minimum wage by city and county.

Please note that although the California minimum wage is $16.00/hour, the federal minimum wage is still just $7.25/ hour.

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/california-minimum-wage/

In certain jurisdictions, nonprofits are exempted or subject to a lower minimum wage. Exemptions or reductions may also apply to younger exempt employees classified as ‘learners’. Additionally, there may be higher minimum wage levels for workers in certain fields, like healthcare and the automotive industry. Unlike some states, California does not allow employers to take tip credits, and so there is no separate tipped minimum wage.

How should small business owners prepare for minimum wage increases?
While minimum wage increases may pose a challenge for small businesses, there are ways to stay ahead of the curve. By keeping up to date on changes to the minimum wage, small businesses can adjust prices and compensation accordingly, and avoid being caught off guard.

If a minimum wage increase is on the horizon, it’s important to look at your budget and financial records. Reviewing operational costs in detail can help you prepare for the change. Make sure to go over all your employees’ wages ­– not just the ones who get a boost from new minimums. These new laws might close the gap between hourly employees and your more senior staff, which could impact the work environment.

To stay compliant, you may need to make some serious financial decisions. That could mean layoffs, increasing prices, or rethinking your hours of operation. Whatever you decide, it’s important to keep your team informed.

Making sure professional employees are aware of the changes and how they may be affected can help minimize the impact on your business. Finally, communicating with customers about any price changes can ensure they understand and are prepared for what’s coming.

What is the California Minimum Wage for 2024?
Starting on January 1, 2024, the state-wide California minimum wage will be $16.00per hour for all employer sizes. However, different cities can create minimum wage laws that are higher than the state minimum wage. Because the cost of living in California is quite high, especially in major cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, workers need to be paid a higher wage to afford the same standard of living as someone in a less expensive area. The minimum wage allows workers to earn a livable wage and helps reduce income inequality.

What is a Good Hourly Wage in California?
The Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT put together what they find to be a living wage, a poverty wage, and the minimum wage for various states based on family size with their living wage calculations of California. It’s important to note that their data is updated each January, and these numbers won’t reflect more recent changes, like inflation.

According to MIT’s research, a single person in California who made $21.24/hr in January, 2023 was making a “living wage.” This is compared to the 2023 $15.50/hr minimum wage, and a poverty wage of $6.53/hr.

For two adults living together with just one of them working, a living wage is $32.30/hr, compared to the $15.50/hr minimum wage, and $8.80/hr poverty wage.

For two adults living together who both work, a living wage is $16.15/hr, vs. $15.50/hr minimum wage, and $4.40/hr poverty wage.

These are all based on having no children, and the 2023 minimum wage of $15.50/hr, which will rise to $16.00/hr on January 1, 2024.

If you have children, then the living wage calculation changes based on the number of children, and how many adults in your household are employed.

What are Full-Time Hours in California?
Full-time employees in California work 40 hours/week and 5 business days.

The Affordable Care Act considers anyone working 30 hours or more per week at an employer with 50 or more employees, as one who is eligible for benefits in California. Full-time employment is at the discretion of the employer. It is up to each employer to determine whether or not they call anyone working less than 40 hours per week full-time.

Can A Person Live in California on $50k a Year?
Living in California on $50,000 per year is not going to be easy. The high costs and the state’s relatively high income tax rate means that a person would have to make some sacrifices to make ends meet.

Most of the state is very expensive, and even with a decent salary, it would be difficult to cover all of the costs.

On a budget of $50,000 per year, it may be wise to look for more affordable areas. Places like Sacramento or Riverside might be good options, as the cost is lower than in other parts of the state.

You could also get a higher paying job which would give you more money to work with each month. Or you could get a job that offers premium wage rates for working holidays or odd hours.

In general, living in California is more expensive than living in other parts of the country. However, there are many ways to save money if you are willing to be creative. With a little bit of planning, a person could live comfortably on $50,000 per year in California.

California's latest job-killing policy is more bad news for Golden Staters
Hiking the minimum wage causes job losses, but it also increases prices.

California’s list of public policy failures was already long, but hiking its minimum wage to $20 an hour for fast-food workers may belong at the top. The predictable fallout in lost jobs and higher prices is already being felt, and the flood of residents fleeing the state is poised to accelerate.

The Golden State is already home to some of the highest taxes and costs of living in the country, the consequences of failed government policies. A higher minimum wage is more of the same.

Consider California’s "green" energy policies that have created the highest utility rates in the nation. Instead of rolling back those mandates, it’s created a new one: surcharges on utility bills, making the middle class pay more, even if they don’t use more.

The overtaxing, overspending and over-regulating by the government in Sacramento has turned the state into such a basket case that 1.2 million more people left California than moved in over the last three years — by far the biggest loss of any state, beating New York by 35%.

Californians clearly don’t like the effects of these policies, but they just got more of them with the higher minimum wage law for fast-food workers. This particular policy provides a superb example of how disastrous economic ideas become law: wonderful rhetoric, terrible results.

The law was advertised as forcing "greedy" corporations to pay workers a "living wage." But businesses are not charities and cannot pay employees more than they produce, or they’ll go bankrupt. Employers pay taxes and other costs on top of an employee’s earnings, and at $20 an hour, many fast-food workers don’t provide enough value to justify the highest minimum wage in the country.

Not surprisingly, California’s fast-food companies have now frozen hiring, and some are already announcing mass layoffs. This is not a small cohort of workers: California is, at least for now, home to half a million fast-food workers.

That number is already dropping and is set to plunge soon. McDonald’s has been investing millions of dollars into fully automated restaurants and opened the first of such stores last year. Jack in the Box and El Pollo Loco both announced they’ll be using robotics to fully automate cooking and cashier functions.

The machines are cheaper than employing people at artificially inflated wage rates, plus the additional costs like training, payroll taxes and vulnerability to lawsuits, thanks to lawyer lobbies.

Where fast-food workers can’t be replaced, their jobs will effectively be outsourced. About 1,100 Pizza Hut delivery drivers are set to lose their jobs, with more layoffs announced at another restaurant chain, Round Table Pizza. Consumers will have to use food delivery apps (also being targeted by California’s notorious Assembly Bill 40), or they’ll have to pick up their orders themselves.

Apologists claim that corporations are just posturing and won’t really lay off thousands of workers. That thinking is largely made possible by the fact that many politicians have never run a business, had to make payroll or hired minimum-wage workers.

In short, they don’t understand the impact of the policy they’re pushing. All the politicians know is that it’s a reliable vote winner, even if it throws low-wage workers under the bus — not once, but twice.

Hiking the minimum wage causes job losses, but it also increases prices. Because lower-income folks disproportionately eat at fast-food restaurants, they bear the brunt of these higher costs, in addition to losing their jobs.

A minimum wage of $20 an hour is really a state ban on any job that pays less than $20. Californians in that category must either go somewhere else where such work is still legal, work illegally "under the table" or rely on welfare.

But the insanity doesn’t end there. The law also creates a Fast-Food Council that can raise the minimum wage for fast-food workers by another 3.5% per year, every year, until there are no fast-food workers left standing.

California will continue to hemorrhage people, and that rate of outmigration will likely accelerate as politicians target low-income workers with wage mandates and inflation. Eventually, all the people willing to work will leave, and the only ones left will be those on the state’s bloated welfare rolls.

The Golden State is killing the goose that laid its golden eggs as planned for the great reset and the new world order.

Show less