California labor leaders scored a significant win for fast-food restaurant employees when Gov. Gavin Newsom last year signed legislation providing a $20-an-hour minimum wage and creating a new government agency to set working conditions.
But as the new Fast Food Council was holding its first meeting Friday, labor unions were already mounting local efforts to undermine the panel’s work and the uniformity of the coming statewide standards. The unions are starting in San Jose and Los Angeles and planning to expand to other California cities.
California’s labor unions have succeeded in bringing attention to a sector of often-neglected, low-income workers. But pushing for more at the city level undermines the balanced statewide deal in which workers and the affected companies have a seat at the table.
Labor market conditions do not end at city limits, nor do the costs of doing business. The challenges workers and employers face are statewide and should be addressed accordingly. In San Jose, where a union demand for local rules is expected to be presented to the City Council soon, and in other Bay Area cities that will likely be eventually targeted, elected officials should reject the union push and let the new state panel do its job.
The statewide deal hammered out last year was a thoughtful compromise that headed off a costly ballot fight in November between unions and fast-food employers. Workers got the new minimum wage, which can increase annually with inflation, and establishment of the council to examine working conditions. Employers avoided parts of an earlier bill that would have held corporations liable for their franchisees’ labor violations.
Gov. Gavin Newsom pressed for the compromise and lauded it afterwards as a step toward “fairer wages, safer and healthier working conditions, and better training by giving hardworking fast-food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table.”
The new Fast Food Council is comprised of representatives — appointed by the governor, the Assembly or the Senate — of the fast-food industry and restaurant owners as well as employees and their advocates. Its mandate is broad. It includes minimum standards on wages, work hours and conditions.
Meanwhile, in San Jose over the past few months, labor leaders have floated ideas for local requirements that would include security guards at every restaurant, two weeks’ advance notice on scheduling, paid time off and employee-rights training for workers paid for by restaurant owners. The latest iteration focuses on the latter two points.
Some of these issues are attempts to do an end-run around the state compromise. Others fall within the purview of the Fast Food Council. Issues pertaining to fast-food workers should be hammered out in Sacramento by representatives of workers and employers with consideration for the worker protections and employer mandates already required under state law.
Labor leaders should honor the statewide deal they agreed to last year. And local elected officials should not waste precious city staff time trying to duplicate state efforts. One set of rules is enough.