California Is Killing Fast Food Jobs
California lawmakers and President Joe Biden seem determined to help fast-food workers by eliminating their jobs.

Due to an odd medical ailment a few years ago, I developed a craving for iron-rich cheeseburgers and ate them constantly. I've long been cured, but in the process became something of a connoisseur of the offerings at virtually every fast-food joint. I've also watched prices for such fare soar to eye-popping levels.
Recently, my wife and I stopped for a couple of ordinary burger/fry/drink meals at a national fast-food chain and were set back nearly $30, which is a third more than I recall paying before. I don't blame the owners given rising wages, new labor laws, and food-price inflation, but as a consumer I'll be cooking my own burgers from now on.
Government policies drive up the costs of things and those rising costs put a damper on business, which is obvious to everyone who is not a member of the legislature. The state already has hammered full-service restaurants. During a recent visit to Sacramento, I noticed most of my favorite spots were shuttered—the result of COVID shutdowns, downtown riots, and whatnot.
Now the state and feds are going after the fast-food industry—and it couldn't come at a worse time. "Fast food franchisees are facing post-COVID headwinds that could spur more of them to file bankruptcy in the coming months," reported Bloomberg Law. The article pointed to the usual struggles—plus rising interest rates and tightening lending standards.
Last year, the Legislature passed—and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed—something known as the FAST (Fast Food Accountability and Standards) Recovery Act or Assembly Bill 257, which creates a new state council. Government will dictate "sector-wide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions related to the health, safety, and welfare of, and supplying the necessary cost of proper living" for fast-food workers.
This is radical stuff, essentially a union-demanded end-run around the organizing process. Following a European model, unions used their political power to create a state agency that—given the political makeup of the lawmakers who have created it—those same unions will dominate. They'll have the power to raise the minimum wage to $22 an hour and impose every manner of costly workplace standard regardless of what the business owners think.
The law is a direct attack on the franchise restaurant model, by which small businesses own a restaurant with national branding. "While California already has some of the most robust labor laws on the books, advocates say those rules are often flouted in part because franchisees have little legal authority to make changes to their businesses aside from cutting corners on worker pay," according to an article last year in left-leaning Vox.
Here we go again, as the Legislature tries to "help" lower-wage workers by destroying their jobs—or at least eroding the profitability of the companies that hire them. We all remember Assembly Bill 5, which promised to provide California's independent contractors with a raft of new benefits and protect them from "wage theft" and other such nonsense. It was a labor priority bill promoted by many of the same interests that championed AB 257.
As a refresher, AB 5 didn't work out as predicted. Instead of hiring their freelancers and permanent employees, companies (including Vox media, which ran an article touting the "landmark" worker law) slashed independent-contracting jobs. Most freelancers themselves were furious, as the new "protection" law tried to push them into a 9-5 factory-floor/cubicle model they were trying to avoid.
Under pressure, the Legislature ultimately exempted more than 100 industries from its provisions and voters exempted ride-share drivers (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash). Yet labor and its legislative errand people rarely learn the requisite lessons. Now AB 257 is on hold after the restaurant industry qualified a referendum for the 2024 ballot.
Instead of seeing the parallels to AB 5, lawmakers are doubling down on this anti-franchise approach. This year, they're advancing the Fast Food Franchisor Responsibility Act (Assembly Bill 1228), which seems like a retributive measure against the restaurant industry for qualifying the measure. To get the sectoral-bargaining bill through, its supporters stripped out language that would have held national franchisors liable for any labor violations by franchisees. AB 1228 reintroduces this as a stand-alone bill.
Just as the Biden administration is trying to impose AB 5-style laws via regulatory fiat, it also is trying to impose a regulation similar to AB 1228 via the National Labor Relations Board. As The Wall Street Journal opined, "The rule would strengthen the hand of Big Labor. Reclassifying contractors as franchise employees could force many parent companies to negotiate with unions, rather than requiring unions to negotiate with local owners."
The president and California lawmakers are so intent on doing union bidding that they refuse to recognize these efforts destroy businesses, eliminate jobs and drive up the cost of eating out. They keep passing laws that "help" workers by eliminating their jobs. How absurd is that?
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Odd that this is being passed as fast "food" joints pretty much require their product purchasers (not really customers) to order through an app, pick up their own orders, and take them away.
Just because the apps crash, the orders are still wrong despite the computers best efforts, when you get there the food is already cold, and it doesn't taste any better, why wouldn't you go there?
I drive past 7 fast food joints going to a sit down restaurant where I only pay 10% more for full service and hot tasty food.
AI is not taking over.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.Apprichs.com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
When looking to buy pull-out couches, there are several options to consider. You can check furniture stores such as IKEA, Ashley HomeStore, and Wayfair. Online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay also offer a wide range of choices. Additionally, consider local classifieds, thrift stores, and online classified websites like Craigslist for potential deals.
HERE——➤ http://www.Puloutcouch.com
Of course this isn't about your preferences in restaurants or restaurant food ... it's about whether or not you have your CHOICE of restaurants. Lucky you that you can afford to pay ten percent more for everything, although it's an open question how much LONGER it will only be ten percent when competition is eliminated.
I agree on your choice. Fast food has lost its value prop. Three major fast food chains locations close to me have closed this year.
I earn approximately $13,000 a month working part-time. I was curious to learn more after hearing from multiple people about the amount of money they were able to make online. Well, it all happened and totally bs-11 changed my life. Everyone must now use this website to try out this job.
.
.
Detail Are Here——————————>>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
True where I live also.
Not that odd. Every time the "progressive" movement increases the cost of hiring workers, employers have to re-evaluate whether or not it's still possible for their particular operation to still cover payroll and other expenses (which the ruling party in CA is also on a continuing mission to increase the cost of).
Like most of "progressive" economic theory, the fundamental theory, which the true believers have figures out how to doublethink their way around noticing is that if the State can just make it costly enough for the productive sector to provide critical goods and services, the retail prices will start to go back down and the cost of living won't continue to increase at a rate that outpaces their ever-increasing wage mandates and a "living" wage can somehow be achieved.
I've actually had discussions with people who believe that competition will prevent factors like business taxes and increased wage mandates (which affect every competitor in a given market) will somehow prevent those costs from being passed along to consumers. Then there's the progressive believers who a "willing to pay more for my fries if the guy making them is paid better" but don't realize that the guy making the fries has to also pay more, and not just for fries, and that ultimately that guy isn't better off despite having a couple more bucks coming in (and more than a couple more going out) at the end of the week.
The progressive believers might say they are willing to pay more for their fries, but the reality is they aren't. They will buy them less often just like everyone else, meaning the guy making them gets laid off to cut costs before the businesses ultimately close. Then they blame "corporate greed" for the businesses closing rather than paying higher wages.
Ask any of the proponents of this type of legislation about what percentage of people work for minimum wage and they'll likely say something in the neighborhood of 20%.
In reality its, depending on if you count workers who get tips and/or commissions, between 0.5% and 2%. Either way it's a lot less than what most people think.
The result of these pushes to force every business into paying a "living wage" is the shutting out of people who can't earn it.
Minimum wage isn't seven fifty or whatever the law says. It's zero.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
It has to be a big contribution to young people being useless as employees too. Kids should work boring jobs that pay shit because that's how you learn to work. But you aren't going to hire some 16 year old with no experience for $15/hr when you can get someone with more work experience.
That's the point, they don't kids taking the jobs. That's why they always use supporting a family of 4 as the basis for their wage demands. The parents make a career out of flipping burgers and the kids don't work. By the time the kids need to get a job to support themselves all the lawmakers that passed these bills are retired and it's someone else's problem.
My state doesn't have a minimum wage, so it's the federal minimum here. Whenever someone tells me we need to increase it because no one can live on $7.50 I ask them who around here is making that. The answer is pretty much no one, even the fast food places are paying double that. Part of the reason is we border a county in another state that has $15/hr minimum, but even before that very few places paid $7.50, market forces didn't allow it.
They did, in fact, "learn their lesson" from previous attempts because the goal is not to help fast food workers or any other kind of workers. The goal was and still is to collectivize all labor. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Disservices created the blueprint several decades ago: since the government can't get away with forcing people to join unions, they simply pass "common sense regulations" that make it very difficult or impossible to practice your profession or earn a good living without complying with their agenda. And then, almost by magic, the number of doctors who are not employees of very large healthcare organizations approaches zero! Unfortunately, the number of doctors ALSO starts to approach zero, so it gets harder and harder to find a doctor - or a fast food restaurant - or an Uber driver - or a freelance journalist - but oh well! You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs!
They always say they are against big business, but they know its easier to control a handful of Walmarts and Amazons than thousands of mom and pops.
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
My economics professor said this is OK. It only eliminates jobs nobody really wanted to do anyway.
And AOC will tell us that people will then have only 2 jobs.
He argued that low paid jobs amount to some kind of slave/exploitation labor. That the government has a duty to raise the costs to the point that the jobs that are not fun/fulfilling are eliminated.
Sounds like one of AOC's professors.
He’s a big believer in personal agency!
Ask your economics professor who will then supply the product those eliminated jobs produced.
Progressives think jobs exist to provide workers with benefits and salaries, and government with resulting taxes. They are actually to produce what the rest of us need to live. Nobody "wants" to drive a garbage truck, but if nobody does, trash gets deep.
I agree with the general tenor of the article, but:
"wage theft" and other such nonsense
Wage theft is not nonsense - it's at the very least a breach of contract, and often enough is a species of fraud. That an employer may be taking advantage of an employee's ignorance of their rights and of labour laws doesn't mean that it's not theft or fraud.
Please expand on wage-theft.
Everyone knows the real profit center is in shorting low wage workers out of 15 minutes pay.
Except that people who use the term "wage theft" are not decrying employers who fail to pay employees what they contractually agreed to pay. Rather, they use it in the Marxian sense that any profits made by the employer actually belong to the employee. So, yes, cries of "wage theft" tend to be nonsense.
At the top of a New York City penthouse, there's a cabal of fat cat wealthy McDonald's shift managers chomping on cigars in a hot tub as they discuss plans to make sure that even if Jamarquantel quits his job at the 7th Ave store because they're shorting his pay, every restaurant he applies for a new job with will do the exact same thing to him.
The obnoxiously arrogant piece of shit does not like facts.
Isn't this a foreseeable consequence of voting for Joe Biden? He is completely owned by the unions.
Yeah it's increasingly silly to read these "libertarian" takes on local issues when they've been completely on board with progressives since 2015. You can't strategically vote for Biden and then bitch when his fellow travelers in CA do exactly what everyone knew they would do. And then give us daily screeds about Republican authoritarianism.
Biden might not have the mental acuity left to be owned by anyone. Whoever is actually running things in his name is deeply in bed with "Big Labor", but since union membership (with some exceptions where the unions are actually still working to serve the interests of their membership) has become primarily a vehicle through which the Dem party is able to "tax" campaign money out of corporate payrolls, and through Davis-Bacon from most major federal procurement/construction projects, it only makes sense that Dem politicians and union leaders would have most of their interests in direct alignment.
I can't say for certain that the AFT and State level Teachers Unions are deliberately sabotaging math education, and trying to steer students away from STEM and into "liberal arts" fields of study, since understanding math past the level of simple addition and subtraction becomes an impediment to the ability of a truly thinking person to buy into "progressive" economic theory. I also can't say what they'd likely be doing differently from their current agenda if that were part of their game plan. But then leftist ideology has also incorporated a basic tenet of "actions mean nothing, focus on the words"...
Just some ideas:
1. Impose right to work laws in every jurisdiction.
2. Require public employees to give up their right to vote.
3. Eliminate public schools and give all families vouchers.
3. Eliminate public schools and give all families vouchers.
How about... Eliminate public schools and the property taxes that are going to support them.
Giving the money to the government in order for it to give it back as vouchers is making things more complicated than necessary.
And more expensive. Cut out the middle government.
1. Impose right to work laws in every jurisdiction.
I'd be fine with that. I never have understood the how the claim that right to work is "anti-union" can be true if union membership actually provides significant real benefits for those who join. Right to work only hurts unions if the only tool the unions have to convince workers to join is the "closed shop" which puts the union in control of access to jobs.
2. Require public employees to give up their right to vote.
I doubt there's a consitutional basis for this one. I'd support severe restrictions on lobbying and campaign donation spending by unions whose membership is more than 50% public-sector employees (maybe also including employees of companies which do most of their business on government contracts), though; trying to stop them from making endorsements or running "issue" ads during campaigns would violate 1A but allowing them to give money directly to candidates or parties has had some disastrous results
3. Eliminate public schools and give all families vouchers.
Eliminating all public schools by mandate is probably too extreme, but all of the "scandanavian" countries which the left used to claim we should be emulating have school choice systems which are essentially "voucher" systems in which funding is allocated according to the choices of parents/students and not according to bureaucracy. Even if it's just as a "bridge" policy to get to the full-choice system, the presence of "public" options can provide a "safety net" for students who can't get in where they want or families who maybe can't work out physical transportation to/from their preferred schools. If it all works right the public system might ultimately become vestigial shut down when it's no longer needed, but to do it up front is so drastic that it could doom the transition to failure.
I doubt there’s a consitutional basis for this one.
Seems like it would kinda be woven into "taxation without representation" or "equal representation" or similar. We rounded 3/5ths up to 1 on the precepts, seems like rounding 1 down to 3/5ths should be doable.
Whenever I read these stories, there is a huge disconnect in my mind. 1. Someone needs a job and applies; 2. They go to the interview and negotiate/accept the wage; 3. They call whoever cares and say YAY I GOT THE JOB; 4. They work at the job; 5. They complain about the job that they applied for and accepted and call conditions an injustice. What is happening between 4 and 5? Did they really think fast food was going to be sittin' in an air conditioned office in a swivel chair? Sadly, as it was with AB 5 most employees don't want these dumb regulations, they don't want to lose their jobs.
Step 4.5 is that they meet an "organizer" who explains how "unjust" it is for the "corporation" to be making $Billions while only paying their workers $10/hr (or in CA, $21/hr for the same work), and how "unfair" for top executives to be getting paid 300-400 times what the janitor makes.
What gets left out of the pitch is that with many of these operations employing hundreds of thousands of workers around the country (in some cases the world), all that "big money" would only amount to a raise of $0.20/hr (less once the impact of payroll taxes and other regulations gets factored in). Even people who learned math from the U.S. public schooling system can figure out that paying $50/month in union dues and getting $8/week in higher wages in exchange isn't a good deal for themselves.
One of my first jobs was at a unionized grocery store. If we got the contractually-obligated 15 hours/week our union dues were exactly equal to our wages over minimum, but we didn't always get our 15 hours. See, there was a code between the union and management, if your job description had "PT" (part time) in it, the union didn't lift a finger to support you. Didn't matter if you worked 10 hours a week for 50, you were still part time and didn't warrant actual representation. And of course if you did work 40+ hours you could never get your description changed because of course the union wouldn't back you up.
Just hire Indian staff already.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/194775987@N02/52978702227/in/dateposted-public/
Nobody needs 23 hours of work.
more economic idiocy brought to you by gavin newsome and robert reich
California Is Killing
Fast FoodJobsFixed.
Jobs are racist!
Prosperity is racist.
While it is true that such laws will eliminate fast food jobs, it is also true that the newly jobless will look for work, pushing down wages in other sectors, and, as that hurts the job seekers, they will emigrate from California.
Watch those electoral vote numbers continue to shrink.
The plan is to tax the robots.
So many fun robot taxes.
Sure, force the robots to vote (R), or even (L).
Wait until Bender comes online. I don’t think a robot tax scheme will work out the way they’re thinking.
For sound economic perspective please go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
...because that's what leftards do.
I live in the Golden State. Seldom do I buy fast food anymore, and I'm well off. I BECAME well-to-do in part by getting value when I spend my money. Thanks to CA laws, CA fast food has become insanely expensive.
Now when we want hamburgers, my wife and I tap our supply of frozen "sirloin-burgers" from Costco. We can put together a high quality, relatively healthy 1/3 lb hamburger with all the trimmings for under $2.50 each. Drinks for well under a dollar each.
Such meals are fast (with planning), healthy, sanitary and delicious. In short, great value for our money and time.
The high CA fast-food prices will greatly accelerate the automation of the industry. McDonalds has three completely automated burger outlets. Assuming it works well, this switch to nonhuman order entering, payments and food prep will move very rapidly.
Simply stated, the current prices will close down many human-employing eateries -- and shorten the hours of those that survive.
The list of what the idiot politicians and just as stupid voters are killing if you just listed what they are not killing rather than what they are killing.
No business can survive progressive ideals, from labor cost which outstrips what the market can bear to the criminals they send into our front doors.
These policies certainly make it less desirable to want to be a fast food franchise owner, so it will have the effect of jobs not being created. They will also cause some to close down and others to automate more activities. However, no matter how many jobs are lost, not all will be. There will be survivors who get a raise and thus get a bit further ahead. To the progressives, that’s a huge victory. They’ll help the job losers later. And if the losers wind up in tent cities, well, shouldn’t we all be living in tents anyways for the good of the planet?
Thank you for the good and informative article that you shared with us.
I used this a lot and used it on my website with attribution
فروش بلبرینگ
I'm curious as to which burger/fry/drink meals the author got that it totaled $30 for two people. That's a ridiculously insane price so I assume there were a ton of add-ons to the burgers?
I regularly pay nearly $30 to pick up burgers for my wife and I, but that's not at McDonald's or any other chain restaurant. It's the Choo-Choo Grille in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for two half-pound cheeseburgers and two generous orders of fries. It's two large meals for us, and I've never had better fast food.
I only wish that places like this had been around 50 years ago, when I was young and so hyperactive I could easily burn off 5,000 calories a day. Perhaps I could have even got my weight up from 120 pounds to 125.
I submit this is the "Keep California Skinny!" movement. But, what's that you say SJW-LGBTQman, there's a conservative somewhere disagreeing with something Librul? To the manponmobile!