#livingwage

by krghospitality krghospitality No Comments

Rocky Start to Cali’s Fast-food Wage Hike

Rocky Start to California’s Fast-food Wage Hike

by David Klemt

AI-generated image of a $20 bill with a cheeseburger covering the president's face, in street art style

I instructed AI to draw a cheeseburger on a $20 bill, in street art style. Enjoy.

We’re barely two weeks into the $20-per-hour wage hike for fast-food workers in California and not everyone is happy with the results thus far.

That is, of course, if reports are accurate. However, the stories coming out of the Golden State are raising eyebrows.

On April 1, the minimum wage for fast-food workers in California jumped to $20 per hour. On the surface, AB 1228 appears to be a victory for hourly hospitality professionals employed by fast-food concepts.

Unfortunately, once we go beyond the surface, things aren’t that cut and dry.

Operators in California are implementing all manner of adaptations in response to the state’s minimum wage boost:

  • Increasing menu prices.
  • Cutting staff hours.
  • Reducing staff.
  • Decreasing operating hours.
  • Closing one or more days of the week.
  • Postponing updates and upgrades.
  • Focusing on delivery.
  • Introducing automation.
  • Putting items that require less labor on the menu.
  • Closing locations permanently.

It should go without saying but a wage increase doesn’t do much good if one’s hours are reduced significantly. Further, it does zero good if one’s employer shutters the workplace.

Per reporting, that’s precisely the situation team at one Fosters Freeze location is in currently. On April 1, workers at a Lemoore, California, location received a group text explaining that their restaurant was closing permanently. Understandably, some staff thought the text was an April Fool’s Day prank.

Certainly, the Lemoore Fosters Freeze isn’t the only restaurant closure related directly to the minimum-wage hike. Nor, it seems, will it be the last.

More Pain Points

When people hear about fast-food menu price increases, the assumption is that guests will reduce visits. Or, perhaps they’ll adjust their usual order. Alternately, some people anticipate guests will give their business to a different fast-food brand.

However, there’s another result that some fast-food operators in California are anticipating or experiencing already.

At a certain point, perception of value is affected negatively. Eventually, a consumer will perceive more value in visiting a full-service restaurant than a QSR or LSR. So, it’s likely that fast-food operators in California will lose guests to traditional “sit-down” concepts.

Should that possibility become a reality, traffic will drop. When the traffic drops, workers’ hours are reduced. Some operators, therefore, will lose staff to FSRs; people need to go where the work and money are, after all.

So, beyond the need to adapt to comply with the new minimum-wage law, fast-food operators must compete with FSRs to keep staff and guests.

What’s a Fast Food Restaurant?

Curious about how California defines “fast food restaurant” in AB 1228, I looked up the text of the bill.

The relevant parts are found under section 1474:

“(a) ‘National fast food chain’ means a set of limited-service restaurants consisting of more than 60 establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services, and which are primarily engaged in providing food and beverages for immediate consumption on or off premises where patrons generally order or select items and pay before consuming, with limited or no table service. For purposes of the definitions in this part, ‘limited-service restaurant’ includes, but is not limited to, an establishment with the North American Industry Classification System Code 722513.”

1474 also includes the following:

“(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), ‘fast food restaurant’ means a limited-service restaurant in the state that is part of a national fast food chain.”

Interestingly, there’s also this exemption:

“(2) ‘Fast food restaurant’ shall not include an establishment that on September 15, 2023, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread, as defined under Part 136 of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, so long as it continues to operate such a bakery. This exemption applies only where the establishment produces for sale bread as a stand-alone menu item, and does not apply if the bread is available for sale solely as part of another menu item.”

Further, AB 610 carves out more exemptions.

Accusations of Corruption

The bakery exemption is fueling accusations of corruption.

Per reports, the exemption is quite favorable for Panera Bread. Why is that particular chain being held up as an example of special treatment and corruption?

As it turns out, should reporting prove accurate, a Panera Bread franchisee and billionaire named Greg Flynn is a Governor Gavin Newsom campaign donor. It’s claimed that Flynn has donated more than $200,000 to Gov. Newsom.

Last month, Flynn, in response to what has been dubbed “PaneraGate,” stated that the minimum wage at his franchise locations would rise to $20 per hour. This announcement was, Flynn claimed, to remain competitive, and in no way a reaction to the controversy surrounding what many perceived to be a favorable exemption for a donor, high school friend, and past business partner.

Again, California is barely two weeks in to this mandated pay rise. To say it’s early days is an understatement. There will be further consequences and adaptations for months and years to come.

So far, however, while many workers and even business owners are happy with the new law, some are already sounding alarms and pushing back.

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

KRG Hospitality. Restaurant Business Plan. Feasibility Study. Concept. Branding. Consultant. Start-Up.

by 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

Delivery worker on bicycle on city street

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

Top