Legislation | KRG Hospitality

December 11, 2023by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

FTC Targets Restaurant Fees and Surcharges

FTC Targets Restaurant Fees and Surcharges

by David Klemt

The Apex Building, also known as the Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington, DC.

Well, that didn’t take long. Less than two months after asking for the public’s input, the Federal Trade Commission is proposing legislation targeting additional fees and surcharges.

The proposed rule is known as the “Unfair or Deceptive Fees” rule. As one may imagine, the FTC is going after hidden and so-called “junk” fees.

As it stands, according to multiple outlets, this rule would prohibit restaurant and bar operators from surcharges that are commonplace. For example, larger-party fees, delivery surcharges, and even credit card processing charges would be banned by the rule.

Instead, operators would be compelled to list total prices on menus, whether for goods or services. Further, the FTC is directing operators to provide larger groups with “larger group” menus. These separate menus would show total prices calculated to include any surcharges.

Even further, it’s being reported that the FTC is also addressing tips. The Commission’s rule directs operators who charge service fees in place of tips to remove the fee and return to tipping.

Interestingly, the National Restaurant Association is reporting that the FTC never identified restaurants as a targeted industry when asking for public comments about junk fees. However, other sources claim that restaurants were indeed included when the FTC put forth the request for public feedback.

Regardless, it’s a fair statement to say that the Commission doesn’t understand restaurant operation and costs. It appears that the FTC either didn’t work with any operators when drafting these proposed rules. Or, if they did seek out restaurant operator input, they put very little stock into it.

Costing Independents

One thing that’s clear is these proposed rules will cost operators. In particular, compliance will cost independent operations, which account for nearly 70 percent of American restaurants.

According to the NRA, the cost of changing menus will cost nearly $5,000 per operator, for starters.

“The FTC doesn’t take the realities of the restaurant industry into consideration,” reads the Association’s fact sheet. “Its estimated compliance cost—$3.5 billion—would equal a cost of $4,818.27 per operator for menus alone. Small independent operators run on a 3-5% margin and make an average of $45,000/year. The cost of making this change would be approximately 10% of their total income.”

As independent operators can attest, credit card swipe fees are a dynamic cost that affects them disproportionately in comparison to their chain restaurant counterparts. Since these fees are calculated on a per-transaction basis and not fixed, adjusting menu prices to comply with the FTC’s rule puts them at a costly disadvantage.

Then there’s the simple fact that when restaurants raise prices, traffic tends to drop. When traffic drops, revenue goes with it. And when traffic and revenue drops, hours are cut back, and people lose their jobs.

Harmful Legislation

As far as I can tell, this is another example of a government agency attempting to impose rules on an industry it doesn’t understand.

When drafting legislation that affects restaurants, a group of operators and industry advocates that truly represents those who will be impacted should be impaneled. Input should be taken into thoughtful consideration before drafting rules, and drafts should be provided to the panel to receive feedback.

Unfortunately, the past few years have made it clear that our industry has very few friends the federal government. Our lobby, such as it is, simply isn’t respected as valuable enough to warrant consideration before imposing harmful rules on the industry.

This, despite the fact restaurants and bars in America employ more than 12 million people. That’s a lot of voters too many elected lawmakers are willing to dismiss as unimportant.

Image: ipse dixit on Unsplash

Daytime photo of the Toronto, Ontario, Canada, skyline

November 15, 2023by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Ontario Updates Employment Standards Act

Ontario Updates Employment Standards Act

by David Klemt

Yesterday, Ontario, Canada’s government tabled updates to the province’s Employment Standards Act meant largely to protect restaurant and hospitality workers.

These explicit protections are known as Bill 79, Working for Workers Four Act, 2023.

Interestingly and timely, the updates seem to be, at least in part, a direct response to technological developments.

For example, Bill 79 addresses digital payment apps and artificial intelligence. I’ll expand on that below.

These updates certainly appear to have been drawn up to protect restaurant workers specifically, and hospitality professionals overall.

An End to Unpaid Trial Shifts

One of the most significant updates addresses hours and pay.

It likely shouldn’t have to be said but, according to Ontario law, an employee must be paid for all the hours they work. This includes trial shifts.

Specifically, the new legislation expressly prohibits unpaid trial shifts.

Pooling Tips

Employers in Ontario are well within their rights to share in pooled tips. That is, if the employer is performing the same tasks as staff.

However, there’s now an update to this practice within the Employment Standards Act.

If any employer intends to share in a tip pool, they must make this clear and inform staff.

Speaking of Tips…

For the most part, digital payment platforms bring with them transaction fees. This includes fees for restaurant workers to get their tips.

“We’re seeing apps that are taking a cut every time…a worker accesses their tips, and that’s not acceptable,” says Piccini.

So, moving forward, employees who are paid tips via direct deposit will have more control. The updates to the Employment Standards Act now state that employees paid this way can choose where their tips will be deposited.

Deducting Wages

Per multiple studies, one in 20 diners has dined and dashed. Apparently, it has been common practice for some employers to deduct wages in response.

Personally, I think it’s ridiculous for any employers to pass a business loss on to their workers. That’s neither good leadership, ethical, or a healthy work culture. I’m not saying I’m surprised it happens; I’m disgusted that it still happens.

Now, the practice of penalizing employees monetarily for guests dining and dashing is prohibited specifically. Will that stop it from happening? Probably not, although perhaps it will happen much less moving forward.

This also includes language that makes it illegal to deduct pay from employees due to customer “gassing and dashing.” For anyone wondering, gas theft affected Ontario businesses to the tune of $3 million CAD in 2022.

Artificial Intelligence

Some employers, as many job hunters are aware, use artificial intelligence during the hiring process.

Now, these employers will have to disclose their use of AI in job listings. In theory, this update addresses privacy and data collection concerns.

Further, job listings will now have to include salary ranges. Also, employers are now prohibited from requiring work Canadian work experience in their job listings or on their application forms.

To review Bill 79 in its entirety, click here.

Image: mkdrone_ on Unsplash

Closeup shot of the flag of the City of Chicago with Wrigley Building in background

October 16, 2023by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Chicago to Phase Out the Tip Credit

Chicago to Phase Out the Tip Credit

by David Klemt

In a move that some are celebrating and others claim will kill jobs, Chicago will phase out the tip credit incrementally by the year 2028.

Currently, pay for tipped workers amounts to 60 percent of the minimum wage. Starting next year, that will change.

Beginning July 1, 2024, tipped workers will earn eight-percent increases on an annual basis. This will continue until July 1, 2028. On that date, tipped workers must receive the full minimum wage.

Put another way, the city of Chicago will eliminate the tip credit entirely midway through 2028. To add clarification, this phasing out of the tax credit applies to all 77 of the city’s neighborhoods.

Overwhelmingly, Chicago’s City Council voted for the so-called “One Fair Wage Ordinance.” Thirty-six alderpeople voted “yea,” while just ten voted “nay.”

As one would expect, not everyone is happy that the ordinance was passed on Friday, October 6. Nor are they pleased that Mayor Brandon Johnson signed off on the bill a week ago today.

Specifically, Alderman Nicholas Sposato referred to the One Fair Wage Ordinance as a “job and business killer.”

Further, as reported by Restaurant Dive last week, the Illinois Restaurant Association opposes the decision to eliminate the tip credit in Chicago.

“We wholeheartedly disagree with the decision to move forward with the elimination of the tip credit,” Restaurant Dive reports a representative of the IRA saying in a statement emailed to the publication.

The National Restaurant Association also opposes the ordinance, reportedly vowing to fight any such legislation that introduced throughout the country.

However, One Fair Wage and the Service Employees International Union are celebrating the plan to phase out the tip credit. However, the SEIU would like the elimination to apply statewide.

A Compromise

Attempting to negotiate for legislation they found more palatable, the IRA had proposed a different approach.

Their version would have seen tipped workers make a minimum of $20.54 per hour. However, that ordinance would only have applied to restaurants that generate $3 million or more in annual revenue. Additionally, the IRA proposed tripling fines related to violations of the proposed ordinance.

Had that proposal been accepted, the pay situation would have been unchanged for tipped workers in smaller operations.

In the end, the IRA agreed to eliminating the tip credit over the course of five years to make the transition smoother for operators. This is due, in part, to the possibility of a two-year phasing out of the tip credit being passed by Chicago’s City Council.

The IRA, NRA, and others who oppose eliminating tip credits point to hardships on the operator side. Increased labor costs will lead to increases in menu prices, reductions in traffic and hours, the elimination of jobs, and, ultimately, the shuttering of many businesses.

However, those who support such ordinance point to the financial stability of vulnerable people, and those who work throughout the industry to earn a living wage.

The Future

While Chicago is the largest city in America to vote to eliminate the tip credit, it’s not the first pass such legislation.

The city joins Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon in doing so. Additionally, Washington, DC, will eliminate the tip credit fully by July 1, 2027. Phase one of DC’s tip credit elimination started May 1 of this year.

Of course, the news out of Chicago also comes on the heels of the FAST Act fight ending in California.

These developments beg the question: Which city or state will introduce legislation next, and how will it play out for workers and operators?

Image: Trace Hudson via Pexels

June 19, 2023by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Credit Card Competition Act, Take Three

Credit Card Competition Act, Take Three

by David Klemt

Here we go again: Bipartisan lawmakers in the House and Senate are taking another shot at the Credit Card Competition Act.

After the incredibly underwhelming progress of the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022, lawmakers are making another move. Now, a bipartisan effort is coalescing around the Credit Card Competition Act of…2023.

The “new” bill was introduced on June 7. On the Senate side, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) are trying to push the bill forward. In the House, Representatives Lance Gooden (R-TX) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) are driving the effort.

Roughly eight months ago it was revealed that 1,802 merchants drafted, signed, and sent a letter to the House and Senate. To summarize quickly, the merchants were pushing for the bill to become law. Another supporter of the CCCA? The National Restaurant Association, claiming that the bill could save merchants $11 billion a year in fees.

Of course, a lot is going on since the introduction of the CCCA of 2022. For one, it’s being widely reported that House Republicans are “revolting,” blocking bills and effectively paralyzing the chamber. There’s also the matter of the second indictment of a former president.

However, reporters who know far more than I about the inner workings of Congress seem optimistic. While there’s drama in the lower chamber, there are articles circulating that seem to think the CCCA of 2023 has enough bipartisan support to pass.

What’s the CCCA Again?

The Credit Card Competition Act of 2023 addresses what the bipartisan lawmakers pushing the bill forward refer to as “the Visa-Mastercard duopoly.”

As I and other journalists have reported previously, Visa and MasterCard in the crosshairs of this bill because of their control over credit card markets. The Merchants Payments Coalition (MPC) said last year that Visa and MasterCard control about 576 million credit cards. That equates to nearly 90 percent of credit and debit cards.

Looking at just the US a couple of years back, people lit up their credit and debit cards for $3.49 trillion in transactions in 2021. In the US, in 2021, the $3.49 trillion in transactions meant Visa and MasterCard collected $77.48 billion in swipe fees.

To combat what some lawmakers are calling a duopoly, the CCCA of 2023:

requires credit cards issued by banks with more than $100 billion in assets to be routed through at least two unaffiliated networks;
requires that the above banks create competition and allow smaller companies to compete in credit-card processing by offering a non-dominant network choice, also known as “dual routing”;
and block networks that are “owned, operated, or sponsored by a foreign state entity” to strengthen national security.

A press release with a link to a one-pager can be found on Rep. Lofgren’s website here.

If you support the CCCA, you can let your lawmakers know by clicking this link.

Image: Avery Evans on Unsplash

March 29, 2023by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

What’s Up with the Restaurant Tax Credit?

What’s up with the Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit?

by David Klemt

If you’re wondering what’s going on with the Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit bills in the House and Senate, you’re probably not alone.

And if you find yourself wondering about them, that’s likely because there isn’t much news about the bills. Unfortunately, it appears that no meaningful progress has been made on HR 9574 or S.5219.

A quick check shows that both bills share the same status: Introduced. As for the House bill, HR 9574, that was introduced on December 15, 2022 by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). The Senate bill, S.5219, was introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) on December 8, 2022.

It’s important to note that Sens. Cardin, Patty Murray (D-A), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) reintroduced S.5219 in January of this year. However, that apparently didn’t mean much as the Congress.gov trackers show no progress.

Last year, some opined that neither bill would receive a vote until January 2023 at the earliest. That “prediction” has proven true, of course—it’s now the end of March.

Restaurant Revitalization Tax Credit Act Summary

Let’s take a quick look at HR 9574 and S.5219.

Both bills propose a $25,000 payroll offset for restaurants. Eligibility requirements are also identical: applicants must have applied for but not awarded a Restaurant Revitalization Fund grant.

Additional, eligible applicants are:

restaurants with operating losses of at least 30 percent in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to 2019; or
restaurants with losses of at least 50 percent in either 2020 or 2021 in comparison to 2019.

So, those are elements that both the Senate and House bills share. What about the differences between the two bills?

Mainly, differences come down to the number of employees. For S.5219, restaurants with ten employees or fewer could be eligible for the maximum payroll tax credit. That credit, as a reminder, is up to $25,000 for 2023. For every employee over ten, the refund cap drops by $2,500.

Now, HR 9574. Restaurants with ten or fewer employees would receive the full $25,000 payroll tax offset. For restaurants with between 11 and 20 employees, the offset would be “partially refundable.”

Now What?

If you believe that you’re eligible for this tax credit, it’s time to let your representatives know you want them to act.

To make things simple for everyone, I’m including the links you need to find and contact senators and representatives.

For senators, click here. And for representatives, click here.

Let them know that it’s time for action on S.5219 and HR 9574. And let them know exactly what action you expect them to take.

Image: Karolina Grabowska on Pexels

December 27, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

FAST Act Dealt Knockdown Blow

FAST Act Dealt Knockdown Blow

by David Klemt

A bill we think is one to watch, California’s Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, may be on the ropes already.

Assembly Bill 257, known as the FAST Act, is “on hold” until 2024. So, while the Save Local Restaurants coalition and voters have yet to kill the bill, it may be out on its feet.

We reported two months ago that fast food chains were moving quickly to kill the FAST Act. It appears that the initial attack on AB-257 was successful.

That is, the chains and coalition got what they want: the ballot initiative vote has knocked down AB-257.

For those unfamiliar with the Save Local Restaurants Coalition, the following organizations are members: The National Restaurant Association (NRA), US Chamber of Commerce (USCC), and International Franchise Association (IFA). Further, fast-casual and QSR chain coalition members—including Starbucks, In N Out, McDonald’s, and Chipotle—threw nearly $13 million at the ballot measure that halted FAST.

What’s FAST?

To read AB-257, the FAST Act, in its entirety, click here.

In summary, FAST:

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”; and
allows the formation of a Local Fast Food Council by a county, or a city that has a population of more than 200,000.

Voters effectively stopped California from implementing FAST until November 2024 at the earliest. (That is, if the California Secretary of State verifies that the referendum effort did indeed secure the required amount of signatures.)

Opposition

A statement from Save Local Restaurants reads, in part:

The quick-service restaurants targeted by the law – which include coffee shops, juice bars, pizzerias, delis, and salad shops – already operate on small, single-digit profit margins. These include more than 10,000 small businesses, including thousands of women- and minority-owned businesses.

If these restaurants are forced to absorb the costs, the result will be bad for workers and local communities. To survive, many restaurant owners will have no choice but to reduce worker hours or introduce automation. Some may choose to leave their communities entirely or go out of business.

As is often the case with overreaching California policies, this is likely only the beginning.

Additionally, the National Restaurant Association, a member of the coalition, has said the following:

The impacts of the FAST Act won’t be limited to quick service restaurants in California. The law allows the new regulating council to set a higher minimum wage for quick service restaurants. Independent restaurants will, however, be forced to increase their pay to match, so they can remain competitive when recruiting and retaining workforce.

Takeaway

We believe this bill is one to watch because similar efforts could spring up in other states. Also, just because the bill is on hold until 2024 in California doesn’t mean other states aren’t working on similar legislation right now.

Now, there are obviously two sides to consider. Opponents, as we see above, say FAST will raise prices, eliminate jobs, and hurt families.

Proponents believe FAST will protect the health, safety, and welfare of fast-food workers. Additionally, the Fast Food Council could increase the minimum wage for fast food workers above California’s $15.50 minimum (effective January 1, 2023).

We’ll keep an eye on FAST over the next couple of years. Perhaps the coalition can work with California on a bill that protects fast food workers and doesn’t hurt operators and the communities they serve.

At any rate, FAST is down but certainly not yet out.

Image: Johann Walter Bantz on Unsplash

Delivery worker on bicycle on city street

November 28, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

$28.82 per Hour for NYC Delivery Workers?

$28.82 per Hour for NYC Delivery Workers?

by David Klemt

In response to the New York City Council’s proposal of $23.82 per hour for delivery workers, some “deliveristas” are asking for more.

Now, before we proceed, no, this isn’t a re-run of an article from last week. This isn’t a case of déjà vu—it’s the evolution of a news story that’s developing rapidly.

So, how much more do delivery workers in NYC want? Well, they’re after a significant bump over the council’s minimum hourly wage proposal.

Requesting that the NYC Council more accurately account for deliverista expenses, some delivery workers are asking for $28.82 per hour.

Early last week, a group consisting of Los Deliveristas Unidos and the Worker’s Justice Project members came together. They gathered at New York City Hall to make their stance on the NYC Council’s minimum wage proposal.

As the deliveristas see it, an increase from $23.82 to $28.82 more accurately reflects their operating expenses. The argument is compelling when one considers costs beyond fuel.

Asking for More

After all, not every delivery worker in NYC (and other markets) uses a car, truck or SUV to make deliveries. That should explain the use of the term “delivery worker,” not “delivery driver.” Some deliveristas ride motorcycles, mopeds, or bicycles. I’m willing to bet some even use scooters, rollerblades, or skateboards.

Using any mode of transportation as a delivery worker comes with requirements, both legal and practical. For example, deliveristas must maintain insurance, maintain their transportation, and purchase and maintain safety equipment.

And yes, that safety equipment is crucial. According to some reports, around a third of NYC those who deliver on two wheels have been injured on the job. Tragically, 33 delivery workers have been killed since 2020. In fact, NYC says delivery workers have the highest injury rate.

Another interesting development may seem semantic. However, when one takes time to truly consider the point it’s rather poignant.

In asking for the proposal of $23.82 to rise by $5 by 2025, are asking for a living wage. Not minimum wage, as the proposal frames the hike, but a living wage.

One worker, Antonio Solís, as quoted by The City, a non-profit NYC news publication, explained: “We are asking the city to make a $5 adjustment, to go that extra mile to ensure we get to a living wage.”

A Request, not a Rejection

It’s also important to note that NYC’s delivery workers aren’t rejecting the council’s minimum wage proposal. Rather, the request is that the council considers updating their proposal ahead of a December 16 public hearing on the matter.

So far, companies like DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats haven’t released much in the way of statements. However, there have been reports quoting a handful of representatives. In pushing back against the proposal, they’ve mentioned increased costs; reduced deliveries; and the possibility of “locking out” deliveristas if delivery demand is low at a given time.

Should legislation go into effect after the public hearing, it’s likely we’ll see lawsuits from the delivery companies.

Image: Patrick Connor Klopf on Unsplash

November 23, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Merchants Support Credit Card Act

100s of Merchants Support Credit Card Competition Act

by David Klemt

Perhaps at least somewhat unsurprisingly, support for the Credit Card Competition Act is growing rapidly among merchants.

In fact, 1,802 merchants are making their position on the bill clear. Those hundreds of merchants drafted, signed, and sent a letter to the House and Senate.

The crux of that letter? To tell our lawmakers to support and pass the Credit Card Competition Act.

To view the letter, sent by the Merchants Payments Coalition (MPC), please click here. For the bill and its status, follow this link.

The Credit Card Competition Act: A Quick Summary

According to the MPC, credit and debit card transactions just in the US reached $3.49 trillion in 2021. Along with those transactions came $77.48 billion in merchant fees—just for Visa and MasterCard.

Why call those out those two processors in particular? Well, it’s because they’re behind about 576 million credit cards. Oh, and they also control 87 percent of the processing market.

In the span of just one decade, Visa and MasterCard swipe fees have risen 137 percent. So, it’s not surprising that merchants are supportive of the Credit Card Competition Act.

There are, indeed, restaurant and hospitality groups attached to the MPC’s letter to Congress. Taking a quick glance, Denny’s franchisees, Dutchman Hospitality Group, and Mandalay Hospitality Group are among the signees.

Obviously, this makes sense—swipe fees are among the highest costs operators face every day.

Where’s this Bill Currently?

It shouldn’t be too shocking to find that this has yet to make much progress. The bill’s sponsors, Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Marshall (R-KS), introduced it in the senate at the end of July.

Three months later, October 28, an attempt was made to include the bill in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). For those who are unfamiliar, the NDAA is known as a “must-pass” bill. After all, it specifies the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) budget and expenditures each year.

Along with a reported 900 other “riders,” Sens. Durbin and Marshall tried to get their bill passed within the NDAA. Unfortunately for the senators and supporters of the bill, the NDAA vote was pushed until the middle of November…which we’re now past.

Of course, the US did just undergo a mid-term election cycle. So, I suppose it’s reasonable to be a bit more patient with the Senate and the progress of this bill.

Those who work in or support our industry can make their opinion of this bill known. Just follow this link to the National Restaurant Association Credit Card Competition Act portal.

Image: Clay Banks on Unsplash

October 28, 2022by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Credit Card Competition Act, Take Two

Credit Card Competition Act, Take Two

by David Klemt

As we approach Election Day on November 8, it’s important to keep in mind that the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022 is still in play.

In fact, reports predict that another attempt to pass the bipartisan bill will take place in November. If reports are accurate, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) will try to include the bill in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Now, that sentence and strategy may have you scratching your head. What, you may be asking yourself, do credit card fees have to do with defense spending?

Well, not much, truthfully. But you’re probably well aware that politicians will try to amend bills in bids to pass legislation they want. The common term for such a provision is “rider.”

It’s not difficult to understand why the Credit Card Competition Act has gone nowhere when we view Sens. Durbin and Marshall’s rider tactic.

Earlier this month, the senators attempted to include their bill within the NDAA. The reason is simple: the bill specifies the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) budget and expenditures each year. In other words, this is a “must-pass” bill.

However, Sens. Durbin and Marshall aren’t the only senators sponsoring bills. And they’re certainly not the only senators attempting to attach riders to the NDAA.

“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton.”

I will say, at least Sen. Durbin’s effort to attach the Credit Card Competition Act rider to the NDAA is somewhat related to the DoD.

You see, he and Sen. Marshall tried to tack on two amendments to push their bill through. The first amendment theorizes that veterans are being hurt by credit card fees. According to the senators, when military veterans make purchases at a military commissary, they are sometimes subjected to surcharges related to merchant interchange fees.

The second amendment brings the US Treasury Department and US Defense Department into the mix. This effort directs the departments to research just how much veterans are paying (annually, one would assume) in surcharges, and which companies these fees benefit. Then, the departments are to issue this report to Congress.

So, hey, points for attempting to make including the Credit Card Competition Act of 2022 relate to the NDAA for FY 2022. Of course, other senators are attempting to include their own riders. Should reporting prove accurate, some 900 amendments have been proposed. Supposedly, a few dozen might just make it.

This strategy didn’t work this month because the NDAA vote isn’t taking place in October. Instead, the plan is for the vote to take place sometime mid-November, when the US Senate reconvenes.

To learn more about the Credit Card Act of 2022, click here. If it’s a bill you support, let your elected officials know. Should you oppose the bill, let that be known to lawmakers as well.

Image: CardMapr.nl on Unsplash

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