California | KRG Hospitality

A frustrated cartoon slice of pizza carrying a suitcase and leaving the state of California

June 14, 2024by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

FAST Act Fallout far from Finished

FAST Act Fallout far from Finished

by David Klemt

Have you ever seen a more frustrated slice of pizza in your life? I doubt it.

The battle over the implementation of California’s FAST Act appears to be heating up further, with multiple parties attempting to land blows on one another.

Depending on the source, the Golden State’s fast-food minimum-wage hike to $20 per hour is either killing jobs or adding them. One side says that limited-service and quick-service restaurants have shed nearly 10,000 jobs since Governor Gavin Newsom signed the FAST Act into law.

On the other side, proponents are pointing to data the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released recently to paint the situation in a better light. According to this data, LSRs in California added 4,500 jobs between September of last year and April of this year.

However, those unhappy with the FAST Act have downplayed this net gain in fast-food jobs. According to reports, that increase in jobs represents a recurring seasonal trend. Further, some sources claim that the data showing a gain in jobs includes restaurants other than LSRs, so the information is being spun to look positive.

One group is so unhappy with Gov. Newsom’s implementation of the FAST Act, they released an obituary-style ad to make their grievance known.

“In Memoriam”

Below, a social media post displaying the “in memoriam” ad from the California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA).

📢 Today, we called out @GavinNewsom in a full-page ad in USA Today for the harmful impact of California’s recent minimum wage hike on fast-food restaurants. Nearly 10,000 jobs lost since AB 1228 was signed into law. CA deserves better policies that support growth and stability.… pic.twitter.com/CCpAk3L2j0

— @cabia (@cabia_speakup) June 6, 2024

The full-page ad is available for viewing here.

Jonathan Maze, editor-in-chief of Restaurant Business, also spoke out against California’s $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers.

During an appearance on FOX & Friends First, Maze addressed how the state handled the pay hike.

“You’ve got two issues, really. You have the fact that it was done almost overnight,” said Maze. “You have the fact that it was a 25-percent increase in the wage rate. Both of those things happening simultaneously, is a really hard thing for restaurants’ bottom line, and you’re seeing the effects of it.”

Brand Relocation

In a development that won’t assuage Gov. Newsom’s critics, a California-born fast-food brand has announced it’s leaving the state.

Blaze Pizza, which opened its first location in Irvine, California, in 2012, has announced the relocation of its headquarters to Atlanta, Georgia. Currently, the brand’s headquarters is located in Pasadena. The move will take place later this year, and it’s not expected to impact the company’s roughly 7,500 employees.

It will, however, impact Blaze Pizza’s taxes. Moving to Atlanta will reduce the QSR’s corporate tax rate by at least a third.

This begs a couple questions: Is this simply a business-savvy move that will reduce Blaze’s taxes and allow it to allocate more resources to further the brand’s growth? Or did the brand analyze the FAST Act’s impact on its bottom line and decide to flee the state for greener pastures?

One can argue the situation is closer to the former than the latter, as Blaze has stated that store-level employees won’t be impacted by the reorganization.

But on the other side of the coin, one can argue the move to Atlanta is a direct response to FAST. Cutting taxes by a third (if not more) may help Blaze avoid restaurant-level job cuts or store closures.

Messy

One thing is mostly clear regarding California and the FAST Act: the situation, so far, is messy.

The tendency is usually to say that as things play out, data will tell the tale. Unfortunately, as this situation is showing us, that’s not always the case. Data is being spun to support agendas.

One thing I’ll say is that I’m happy some fast-food workers’ lives are improving. Or, at least their wages have gotten better. But, of course, if their employers are cutting hours or eventually closing stores, is that improvement sustainable?

And then there are the guests. Reports appear to indicate that more and more Americans now perceive fast food to be a luxury. That doesn’t bode well for LSRs and QSRs in California in particular, nor for fast-food operators across the US.

This situation is complex, with many factors impacting California’s restaurant workers, operators, and guests. We likely won’t know the true impact of the FAST Act until the end of this year, at the earliest.

Other states looking at implementing similar measures should keep their eyes trained on California before moving forward. Legislators need to meet and actually listen to independent and chain operators, along with people representing the workers in good faith.

Image: Shutterstock. Disclaimer: This image was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system.

October 21, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Cali Chains Move Quickly to Kill FAST

California Chains Move Quickly to Kill FAST

by David Klemt

If recent reporting is accurate, fast food chains with locations in California are fighting the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act.

Several well-known restaurant chains have reportedly already dumped well over $10 million into a ballot drive effort. Among the chains lobbying to kill the bill are In N Out, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Chipotle.

In other words, the group of chains aiming to defeat AB-257 in California have very deep pockets. These heavy hitters are reaching deep to contribute millions of dollars to Save Local Restaurants, the coalition responsible for starting the ballot initiative.

And who are the Save Local Restaurants coalition members? The National Restaurant Association (NRA), US Chamber of Commerce (USCC), and International Franchise Association (IFA).

What is AB-257?

The Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, also known as the FAST Act, is a California bill. Enacted on September 5 of this year, FAST amends a section of the state’s labor code that relates to food facilities and employment.

Click here to review the bill’s text in its entirety.

To summarize, FAST does the following:

Establishes the Fast Food Council, ten members appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Rules Committee. The council will operate until January 1, 2029.
Defines “the characteristics of a fast food restaurant.”
Gives the Fast Food Council the authority to set “minimum fast food restaurant employment standards, including standards on wages, working conditions, and training.”
Provides the council the power to “issue, amend, and repeal any other rules and regulations, as necessary.”
Allows the formation of a Local Fast Food Council by a county, or a city that has a population of more than 200,000.

It’s that third bullet point that likely stands out the most to chain operators. On January 1, 2023, California’s minimum wage increases to $15.50 an hour. If the Save Local Restaurants ballot initiative fails, the Fast Food Council could boost the minimum wage to $22 per hour right after we all yell, “Happy New Year!”

Proponents say the bill protects the health, safety, and welfare of fast-food workers. Opponents call it radical.

Fighting FAST

According to Save Local Restaurants, it’s not just chains that want to kill FAST:

“The FAST Act is opposed by small and family-owned businesses, minority-rights groups, workers, consumers, your favorite restaurants, taxpayers and community-based organizations,” reads their website.

Among their reasons for attempting to kill the bill are:

a resulting increase in the price of food;
the elimination of thousands of jobs in California;
an increase in the cost of living in the state; and
the millions of dollars the coalition claims the bill will cost California taxpayers annually.

Reportedly, full-service restaurant operators also oppose FAST. The reason is simple: If the Fast Food Council hikes fast-food worker minimum hourly wages significantly, FSRs will struggle to compete. FSR operators will have to hike menu item prices further, a situation that’s growing untenable as consumers balk at paying more at restaurants.

Then, there’s the fact that bills similar to FAST could pass in other states. So, chains are contributing millions to see that the Save Local Restaurants ballot initiative succeeds.

Should the effort be successful, FAST will be included on California’s 2024 ballot. That means it will be suspended until 2024 and be in the hands of the voters.

Image: Tima Miroshnichenko via Pexels

January 4, 2021by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Defiance of Sweeping Restaurant and Bar Restrictions is Growing

Defiance of Sweeping Restaurant and Bar Restrictions is Growing

by David Klemt

Defiance of Covid-19-related bar and restaurant restrictions is growing.

Operators across the United States are showing their willingness to refuse to comply with orders they feel are unjust. From being restricted to delivery and takeout only to crippling capacity limits, restaurant and bar owners are making it clear they have no intention to quietly let their employees and businesses suffer.

The pushback has taken various forms so far, from civil disobedience to organized, peaceful protests.

There’s the #OPENSAFE movement in Orange County, California, to which several dozen operators have committed. These business owners have pledged to operate safely and responsibly but have refused to comply with Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders that banned in-person dining.

86 Politicians, a grassroots movement coming out of Los Angeles County in California, was created as a response to the sweeping orders kneecapping the hospitality industry. If politicians are going to hurt rather than help operators and their employees, 86 Politicians supports recalling and removing them from office.

In New York City, the Latino Restaurant Bar and Lounge Association of New York State and New York City Hospitality Alliance organized a peaceful protest just over two weeks ago. Several hundred restaurant and bar owners, operators and workers gathered and marched against Governor Andrew Cuomo’s ban on indoor dining. Gov. Cuomo’s order was itself defiant: it defied logic and went against the state’s own contact-tracing data.

Now, an operator in Minnesota is facing a five-year suspension of her bar and bistro’s liquor license for defying orders. Lisa Hanson, owner of the Interchange Wine and Coffee Bistro in Albert Lea, roughly 90 minutes south of Minneapolis-Saint Paul, refuses to comply with Governor Tim Walz’s executive order banning indoor service. Hanson has been engaged in this fight since at least December of last year.

Hanson organized a protest—a reportedly peaceful one—of around 200 people yesterday. Protestors marched and chanted from city hall to the courthouse, walking past the Interchange at one point.

The bar and bistro, which has been hit with a temporary restraining order and had its license revoked by the Minnesota Department of Health, has a sign up declaring it a “Constitutionally Compliant Business.” That sign, which appeared in a WCCO 4 News clip and bears the logo, phone number and weblink for the Constitutional Law Group, states that the Interchange doesn’t follow any government official or agency’s “orders or suggestions” for face masks or social distancing.

According to a news report, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety is moving forward with a 60-day suspension of the Interchange’s liquor license. Hanson told reporter David Schuman that she had two choices: “Either I closed permanently or I opened fully.”

Hanson chose the latter. The Interchange’s owner is entitled to a court hearing before her suspension goes into effect. A tip jar at the bar and bistro has been transformed into a legal fund collection.

Whether one agrees with Hanson’s decision to make a stand and risk her liquor license and therefore business is somewhat beside the point. The #OPENSAFE and 86 Politicians movements, the protests in New York City, the story of the Interchange (which has yet to reach its conclusion), all point to increasing tensions.

Many restaurant and bar owners and operators don’t feel as though their voices are being heard. They feel like politicians at all levels of government are targeting them, using the businesses as scapegoats. More and more, the words “arbitrary” and “unfair” are coming up in conversations about rules that are crippling—if not outright killing—the hospitality industry.

Well over 100,000 restaurants and bars in the US have closed permanently since the start of the pandemic in March of last year. Unless officials listen to operators and at least gain a cursory understanding of their needs and challenges, more closures and job losses are imminent.

To be clear, we at KRG Hospitality aren’t against logical, common sense health and safety protocols aimed halting the spread of Covid-19. One of the cornerstones of hospitality is ensuring the safety of guests and employees. However, government officials and agencies are implementing and executing orders that are, quite clearly, uninformed and severely harmful. What works for retail and other industries doesn’t work for our industry.

It’s crucial that pressure be kept on Congress and Senate to vote on the RESTAURANTS Act and ensure it’s signed into law. The 117th Congress was sworn in yesterday and we must continue to demand they do their jobs and save our industry. We’ve been targeted as scapegoats—it’s beyond time we receive targeted relief.

Politicians can expect more protests and less faith in their abilities to govern if restaurant and bar owners and professionals continue to be harmed by their orders. Perhaps the only way to persuade them to help the industry and, in turn, keep their constituents employed, is to imperil their political influence and careers. Eighty-six ignorant and harmful politicians, indeed.

Image of Minnesota State Capitol: Bao Chau on Unsplash

December 16, 2020by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Is Texas the Model for Restaurant Operation During the Pandemic?

Is Texas the Model for Restaurant Operation During the Pandemic?

by David Klemt

The mass exodus to Texas has been all over the news lately.

Many new Texas residents moved to the Lone Star State moved from California. Some moved to escape exorbitant rent, home prices, and taxes. But others have left California due to what some deem over-reaching Covid-19 restrictions.

On December 5, a regional stay-at-home order took effect in five California regions. Included in that order was a restriction on “nonessential trips” between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. Some California lawmakers disagreed with labeling the restriction a “curfew” but it certainly seemed like one to Californians.

Also included in the order was a full shutdown of businesses categorized as bars, while restaurants were restricted to delivery and takeout only. In response, a group of operators in Orange County formed the #OPENSAFE movement and made it known they intended to defy the order, which is expected to remain in place through at least Christmas.

It’s likely that some former Californians flocked to Texas due to Governor Gavin Newsom’s restrictive stay-at-home order and “Covid fatigue.”

But is Texas less restrictive than California?

Some counties in Texas did implement curfews. For example, a 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. curfew took effect in Bexar, El Paso and San Antonio Counties over the Thanksgiving holiday. However, they were short-lived and ended November 30.

According to reports, El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego is mulling the idea of a “partial curfew” for the period between the Christmas holiday and New Year’s Eve.

One major difference between the orders implemented in California and those that were issued in Texas is that the latter weren’t blanket, statewide restrictions.

Another difference regards bars. Drinking establishments are closed throughout California. In Texas, according to this document located on the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission website, “[b]ars or similar establishments located in counties that have opted in may operate for in-person service up to 50% of the total listed occupancy inside the bar or similar establishment,” and guests must remained seated if they’re drinking or eating.

Interestingly, no occupancy limit exists for a bar’s (or “similar establishment’s”) outdoor area. Another interesting detail: “the County Judge of each county may choose to opt in with the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) to allow bars or similar establishments to operate with in-person service.”

That statement relates to Texas’ GA-32 executive order. In counties where Covid-19-related hospitalization rates and case counts meet state requirements, county judges can opt-in to reopen bars. In fact, the TABC features a map—updated daily at 3:00 P.M. CST—that displays the counties in which bars are permitted to open their doors.

Bars are required to stop serving alcohol at 11:00 P.M. but don’t have to close for business or send guests away at that time.

Restrictions are different for Texas restaurants. According to the TABC’s website, “Restaurants may operate for dine-in service up to 75% of the total listed occupancy inside the restaurant; outdoor dining is not subject to an occupancy limit; and restaurant employees and contractors are not counted towards the occupancy limitation. This applies only to restaurants that have less than 51% of their gross sales from alcoholic beverages.”

Per news coverage, the cutoff rule Texas bars operate under doesn’t apply to restaurants, motivating the decision of thousands of bar owners to reopen their businesses as restaurants.

One of the highest-profile ex-Californians who made the move to Texas recently is Joe Rogan. Rogan speaks with Texas native and entrepreneur Richard Rawlings on the most recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast on Spotify. The subject of California comes up roughly 23 minutes into the discussion, with Rogan calling out California and saying that Californians “are recognizing” that “California itself doesn’t exist as everybody thought of it.”

Rogan goes on to say that California’s government is to blame for the exodus to Texas, saying, “Literally, it’s a case of now we know that if you have poor government, the government can ruin a state.”

He praises Texas Governor Greg Abbott and his approach to Covid-19. In particular, Rogan lauds Gov. Abbott for shutting down the state for a short period of time but allowing businesses to remain open. He mentions that while businesses are still struggling—capacity restrictions, social distancing protocols, mask requirements—at least they’re able to operate.

At around the 24-minute mark, the conversation shifts to restaurants in particular.

“You can’t even go eat outside. There’s a 10:00 P.M. curfew in Los Angeles. It’s insane. There’s no science behind it, either. There’s no science that shows that if you get people to stay home after 10:00 P.M. that there’s less transmission,” says Rogan.” There’s no science, nothing. It’s arbitrary decisions that are made by politicians. And that’s the minimum: The outdoor dining thing is the most egregious because you have all these people that spent so much money to try to convert their restaurants and make these outdoor dining [spaces]—spent thousands of dollars that they didn’t even fucking have. They just wanted to stay open, and then they just get shut down.”

Rawlings then references the owner of Pineapple Hill Saloon & Grill, Angela Marsden, and the emotional, viral video she posted in response to Los Angeles restaurants being prohibited from offering outdoor dining.

Marsden claimed to have spent $80,000 to comply with L.A. County health requirements and create an outdoor dining area before the restriction was put in place. In the video, she shows a television production crew dining under tents set up next to her outdoor dining area. Ultimately, Marsden had to shut down after running out of funds.

“I was pretty pissed off at that one because, you know, we shut down Gas Monkey Bar & Grill for the winter,” says Rawlings. “We’re just hanging out, see what happens.”

Texas hasn’t fully reopened and some may still view some of the state’s Covid-19 rules as arbitrary. However, capacity limitations for bars (up to 50 percent) and restaurants (up to 75 percent) are much more viable for operators.

There are other questions to consider regarding Covid-19 protocols and restrictions. If state lawmakers implement rules that ultimately encourage their residents to flee to other states, does that increase the risk of infection rates, hospitalizations and deaths rising in those states? Is America capable of setting aside our divisions and pulling in the same direction to flatten curves nationwide? Are our lawmakers capable of abandoning the arbitrary for the targeted and logical to provide relief and increase the survivability rates of restaurants, bars and other small businesses?

Covid-19 protocols can change in any state at any time, but for now, Texas may serve as the best model for restricted restaurant and bar operations in the United States.

Image: Thomas Park on Unsplash

December 11, 2020by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Orange County’s #OPENSAFE Restaurant Collective Defies Governor Newsom

Orange County’s #OPENSAFE Restaurant Collective Defies Governor Newsom

by David Klemt

A group of California restaurant operators is pushing back against current restrictions in defiance of orders they feel go too far.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stay-at-home order mandates that restaurants remain open only for delivery and takeout. The order affects five California regions: Northern California, the Bay Area, Greater Sacramento, the San Joaquin Valley, and Southern California.

Throughout 2020, similar orders have been issued throughout the United States. They’ve included an array of restrictions, from banning indoor and outdoor dining to choking traffic by imposing significant capacity restrictions.

Allowing only delivery and takeout is not the health and safety solution lawmakers believe it to be. Third-party delivery platforms and their policies can be detrimental to operators, worsening an already bad situation.

Several operators in Orange County, located in the Southern California region, are, per an Instagram post, refusing to comply with Gov. Newsom’s order.

The statement on publicist Alexandra Taylor’s Instagram account is posted in its entirety below:

“We, as responsible small business owners and operators, do hereby declare our intention to protest the current state stay home order and to maintain our safety standards of service as set forth by country and state health guidelines.

“We cannot, in good conscience, allow our employees and their families to have their health and safety jeopardized as resources to them have been exhausted.

“We will continue and strengthen our mitigation of the potential spread of SARS-Covid19 with the highest standards of safety protocol including, but not limited to: Outdoor Dining, Socially Distanced Seating, Mask Requirements when not seated, PPE, Readily Available Sanitizer to back of house/front of house staff, immediate quarantine and isolation of potentially infected employees, Barriers to prevent close quarters transmission between guests, limited capacity, etc.

“Although eating and drinking establishments (both indoor and outdoor) have shown to increase the potential for viral transmission, current data also indicates that travel and essential shopping have as much as a 10x more likely chance of transmission than these establishments based on CDC risk assessments.

“We agree, as responsible business owners, to commit to staying open with a dedication to public health.”

The image of the statement is accompanied by the hashtag #OPENSAFE and American flag emoji. More than 80 Orange County establishments that support the #OPENSAFE movement were listed in the caption of the post at the time of publication. The original post states that the list of venues is growing daily.

Taylor, the founder and president of The ATEAM, included a caption that read, in part:

“RESTAURANTS. I represent them, I invest in them, I celebrate them, I support them, I am passionate beyond words for them, for the PEOPLE behind them— and I will fight for them.

“This is a declaration for not only restaurants but all SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS to commit to STAY OPEN SAFELY and RESPONSIBLY, while giving their establishments, their employees, and their families a fighting chance to survive this BS.”

State and county officials across the nation can impose a number of penalties on businesses that defy orders. Fines and temporary suspensions of business licenses appear to be the most common. In Chicago, for example, operators can face fines in excess of $10,000. One restaurant, Ann Sather, owned by Chicago Alderman Tom Tunney, violated a ban on indoor dining and ignoring Covid-19 safety rules and faces a maximum fine of $10,500.

Earlier this year, a restaurant in Monterey County, located in California’s Bar Area region, faced fines of up to $35,000 violating shelter-in-place orders.

It’s unclear at the moment if the collective of defiant Orange County operators will face consequences for their civil disobedience. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes has stated that the department has no intention of enforcing Gov. Newsom’s order closing restaurants.

“Orange County Sheriff’s deputies will not be dispatched to, or respond to, calls for service to enforce compliance with face coverings, social gatherings, or stay-at-home orders only,” said Sheriff Barnes. “Deputies will respond to calls for potential criminal behavior and for the protection of life and property. Our actions remain consistent with the protections of constitutional rights.”

Whether operators in other counties across America coalesce around their own #OPENSAFE movements remains to be seen. The consequences must be fully understood and weighed, and law enforcement’s stance on enforcing stay-at-home and shelter-in-place orders regarding bars and restaurants must also be considered.

Two things are, however, clear. One, operators have had enough. Two, government officials need to listen to restaurant and bar operators and workers about the impact of restrictions before issuing orders.