Gov Newsom leaves Panera Exempt from CA Min Wage?

[veteran+]

I can only say that I get this info from "debunking" sites and the jury is still out on all this.

So.........................................

[storewanderer]

I can only say that I get this info from "debunking" sites and the jury is still out on all this.

So.........................................

Based on the other Panera thread we have going, if they fire the bakers and quit baking the bread in store, they will be subject to the new law... no question.

You read the actual law- do you see anything in there that says they have to "mix the dough" in the store to be exempt from the law? I don't see that. I see that they have to produce bread and sell loaves of bread.

Their current process: Taking a pre-made refrigerated dough and then in the store forming it into bread, proofing it, baking it, putting it through a slicer, I am confident that qualifies as producing bread, and if the "office of the Governor" thought otherwise I'd like to see how that goes in a court.

Their new process: Taking a 100% pre-baked loaf of bread out of the freezer and "thawing it and selling it" without any oven involved, would not qualify.

A par-baked loaf would be a legal gray area (where the frozen par baked loaf goes into the oven but there is no proofing or anything done on it- like a La Brea Bread)- I think someone could possibly make the legal argument it qualifies since they are using an oven in some form, but lacking the proofing, dough formation, etc., in my opinion, it would be a big stretch.

This reminds me of when Wal Mart had that meat department somewhere vote in the union and suddenly switched to case ready meat. Supposedly they were trialing it in a few stores too, just like Panera was supposedly trialing not having bakers in a few stores.

Panera obviously has to make this change because there will be franchisees in CA who will wish to use the bread exemption they are perfectly qualified to use and now with the supposed questionable situation involving Governor and his donor(s), it is a PR disaster. So the best thing to do is change the production model in the stores to make it so the stores do not qualify for this. Obviously it was not Panera Corporate who lobbied for this exemption in CA since they are now making a change to disqualify their stores from using this exemption, this was a more "local level" lobbying effort in CA between CA people and CA politicians.

So at the end of the day this change reduces employment in Panera shops due to firing the bakers, fewer people have jobs, but those left will be enjoying whatever the benefits of the new law are to the employees, which beyond the higher wage, are dubious at best. They'd already get the higher wage because the market will dictate that wage to everyone in this business whether they are actually subject to the new law or not.

[Alpha8472]

There are more exemptions to this law. If the restaurant is in an airport, hotel, casino, theme park, beach, museum, racetracks, stadiums, event centers, corporate cafeteria, pier, Port, park concession, etc.

There are so many exceptions. What if you set up your own museum at your restaurant? What about Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco and Pier 39? What counts as a casino? What about a Card Room? There are Casinos in California that are just holding Poker games.

[ClownLoach]

There are more exemptions to this law. If the restaurant is in an airport, hotel, casino, theme park, beach, museum, racetracks, stadiums, event centers, corporate cafeteria, pier, Port, park concession, etc.

There are so many exceptions. What if you set up your own museum at your restaurant? What about Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco and Pier 39? What counts as a casino? What about a Card Room? There are Casinos in California that are just hold Poker games.

The difference is that the bakery that bakes and sells bread as a loaf to customers, with over 50 units etc. that had opened before specified date which was in advance of the law was deadly specific to Panera, and Panera only. Nobody can name any other known restaurant chain in California that matches these specifics except Panera. And now they're making up a "location of mixing of the dough" rule out of thin air which is not listed anywhere in the law itself, and they're hoping nobody checks. This is starting to be referred to as "PaneraGate."

The other exceptions are broader and can apply to specific units of any chain. For example a casino Taco Bell or McDonald's would both be exempt, there isn't a bias to a specific chain. This bread exception only applied to a single chain which anyone with two brain cells could figure out was Panera. They got caught, and now they're changing their story and outright lying to try to wiggle out of the ensuing scandal.

[storewanderer]

There are more exemptions to this law. If the restaurant is in an airport, hotel, casino, theme park, beach, museum, racetracks, stadiums, event centers, corporate cafeteria, pier, Port, park concession, etc.

There are so many exceptions. What if you set up your own museum at your restaurant? What about Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco and Pier 39? What counts as a casino? What about a Card Room? There are Casinos in California that are just hold Poker games.

The difference is that the bakery that bakes and sells bread as a loaf to customers, with over 50 units etc. that had opened before specified date which was in advance of the law was deadly specific to Panera, and Panera only. Nobody can name any other known restaurant chain in California that matches these specifics except Panera. And now they're making up a "location of mixing of the dough" rule out of thin air which is not listed anywhere in the law itself, and they're hoping nobody checks. This is starting to be referred to as "PaneraGate."

The other exceptions are broader and can apply to specific units of any chain. For example a casino Taco Bell or McDonald's would both be exempt, there isn't a bias to a specific chain. This bread exception only applied to a single chain which anyone with two brain cells could figure out was Panera. They got caught, and now they're changing their story and outright lying to try to wiggle out of the ensuing scandal.

I have my opinion on what happened but even on the crack websites I look at for "news" I saw some real talk about this weeks back and of course lots of anger but now nobody is talking about it anymore. I feel like the whole thing is already forgotten. In another realm I would have said when they came out and made up that "mixing of dough" requirement that is nowhere in the law, that should have attracted more attention on what went on here. But it appears to have had the successful effect of helping sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Unless it was a wacky exemption to try to prohibit supermarket bakeries from being part of this law?

Which brings another point up. Krispy Kreme- they sell the same things as a supermarket bakery.

[veteran+]

Oh, don't worry, this will come back.

After all it's California and everyone loves to point the finger at this State (especially with Newsome at the helm).

I project "Paneragate" will have legs....................perhaps the SCOTUS will have to weigh in and/or recall Newsome again.

[storewanderer]

Oh, don't worry, this will come back.

After all it's California and everyone loves to point the finger at this State (especially with Newsome at the helm).

I project "Paneragate" will have legs....................perhaps the SCOTUS will have to weigh in and/or recall Newsome again.

All of what you say maybe should happen but won't.

Where the hit does come here is what about other Panera franchisees? Are they paying the $20 ***and*** honoring the terms of the new law?

They haven't switched to frozen bread yet.

Silence from all involved.

And I think that silence is what we will keep hearing.

[ClownLoach]

There are more exemptions to this law. If the restaurant is in an airport, hotel, casino, theme park, beach, museum, racetracks, stadiums, event centers, corporate cafeteria, pier, Port, park concession, etc.

There are so many exceptions. What if you set up your own museum at your restaurant? What about Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco and Pier 39? What counts as a casino? What about a Card Room? There are Casinos in California that are just hold Poker games.

The difference is that the bakery that bakes and sells bread as a loaf to customers, with over 50 units etc. that had opened before specified date which was in advance of the law was deadly specific to Panera, and Panera only. Nobody can name any other known restaurant chain in California that matches these specifics except Panera. And now they're making up a "location of mixing of the dough" rule out of thin air which is not listed anywhere in the law itself, and they're hoping nobody checks. This is starting to be referred to as "PaneraGate."

The other exceptions are broader and can apply to specific units of any chain. For example a casino Taco Bell or McDonald's would both be exempt, there isn't a bias to a specific chain. This bread exception only applied to a single chain which anyone with two brain cells could figure out was Panera. They got caught, and now they're changing their story and outright lying to try to wiggle out of the ensuing scandal.

I have my opinion on what happened but even on the crack websites I look at for "news" I saw some real talk about this weeks back and of course lots of anger but now nobody is talking about it anymore. I feel like the whole thing is already forgotten. In another realm I would have said when they came out and made up that "mixing of dough" requirement that is nowhere in the law, that should have attracted more attention on what went on here. But it appears to have had the successful effect of helping sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Unless it was a wacky exemption to try to prohibit supermarket bakeries from being part of this law?

Which brings another point up. Krispy Kreme- they sell the same things as a supermarket bakery.

Krispy Kreme doesn't sell loaves of bread. The exemption was specifically for loaves of bread that are baked on site and sold directly to customers as a bread product, not made into a sandwich. And there was a date and unit count requirement so there is no other bakery fast food chain that qualifies besides Panera. To argue Panera wasn't the target would mean that they had someone fight to install a specific exemption that was for nobody at all. It makes no sense to confess to the "sausage making process" leading to this exemption then denying that the only possible recipient of said exemption was involved. It makes no sense. Having said all that, the problem is always the cover up. Newsom completely and openly confessed. He really was transparent and honest when questioned. It is the subsequent work of his staff that is really in question here as they're the ones playing historical revision and citing false clauses of where the bread dough is mixed. If Newsom fired these staffers for their obvious lying to the press then at least he could say he wasn't trying to cover anything up. The fact he's accepting the status quo now is where it becomes suspicious

[storewanderer]

The difference is that the bakery that bakes and sells bread as a loaf to customers, with over 50 units etc. that had opened before specified date which was in advance of the law was deadly specific to Panera, and Panera only. Nobody can name any other known restaurant chain in California that matches these specifics except Panera. And now they're making up a "location of mixing of the dough" rule out of thin air which is not listed anywhere in the law itself, and they're hoping nobody checks. This is starting to be referred to as "PaneraGate."

The other exceptions are broader and can apply to specific units of any chain. For example a casino Taco Bell or McDonald's would both be exempt, there isn't a bias to a specific chain. This bread exception only applied to a single chain which anyone with two brain cells could figure out was Panera. They got caught, and now they're changing their story and outright lying to try to wiggle out of the ensuing scandal.

I have my opinion on what happened but even on the crack websites I look at for "news" I saw some real talk about this weeks back and of course lots of anger but now nobody is talking about it anymore. I feel like the whole thing is already forgotten. In another realm I would have said when they came out and made up that "mixing of dough" requirement that is nowhere in the law, that should have attracted more attention on what went on here. But it appears to have had the successful effect of helping sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Unless it was a wacky exemption to try to prohibit supermarket bakeries from being part of this law?

Which brings another point up. Krispy Kreme- they sell the same things as a supermarket bakery.

Krispy Kreme doesn't sell loaves of bread. The exemption was specifically for loaves of bread that are baked on site and sold directly to customers as a bread product, not made into a sandwich. And there was a date and unit count requirement so there is no other bakery fast food chain that qualifies besides Panera. To argue Panera wasn't the target would mean that they had someone fight to install a specific exemption that was for nobody at all. It makes no sense to confess to the "sausage making process" leading to this exemption then denying that the only possible recipient of said exemption was involved. It makes no sense. Having said all that, the problem is always the cover up. Newsom completely and openly confessed. He really was transparent and honest when questioned. It is the subsequent work of his staff that is really in question here as they're the ones playing historical revision and citing false clauses of where the bread dough is mixed. If Newsom fired these staffers for their obvious lying to the press then at least he could say he wasn't trying to cover anything up. The fact he's accepting the status quo now is where it becomes suspicious

The staff of Newsom trying to cover it up and make up this "mix dough on site" thing is the part of this that disgusts me the most. That is where I see the biggest problem.

I know, the sausage comment... the whole thing that the law is in there in the first place with this odd exemption... bad... crooked... corrupt... anything you want to call it, but that is very common in politics... the smooth brush off and sausage comment were honest remarks and actions in my opinion.

[Alpha8472]

The exception for chains that have less than 60 locations is interesting. What if McDonald's rebranded their restaurants? For example, rebrand 59 restaurants as Ronald McDonald's Hamburgers or Grimace's Burgers. Would that allow below $20 per hour wages?