Gov Newsom leaves Panera Exempt from CA Min Wage?

[ClownLoach]

"Guarantee if Trump had made some deal with a business owned by a donor on legislation and then this sausage comment it would absolutely be clarified and on TV news/late night shows 24/7 what he did."

That is not how it works.

Can we not go down this political thing?

How it works is there needs to be accountability for what is in this law with this selling loaves of bread exemption and how/why it got there. I don't care who is involved or why or how or who donated to who. The "sausage" comment is an honest answer but needs more information and context. That isn't happening here.

And yes I know this is how they all do it with these laws. There is always sausage...

And to be completely fair, I brought this up only because the primary topic of discussion around Panera being inexplicably exempt has been discussed on this forum many times previously. It was a mystery to all of us why say a fast food restaurant that makes bread would be exempt when maybe a fast food restaurant that makes tortillas would not be. None of us could figure out why this exemption occurred and then the news broke alleging that it was a political favor between the governor and the key Panera franchisee. The fact that this answered our questions made it newsworthy in my eyes despite the fact that the flavor of this forum has always been to lean away from political posts. I apologize for the fact that this topic is definitely rooted in politics but I felt that was necessary to continue the conversation about Panera now that not only we have answers but also a scandal appears to have unfolded in a very strange way. An honest admission by the governor, followed by a rebuke and subsequent retraction from his underlings and the party in question? When does that happen anywhere? This law is going to have profound effects on the fast food industry, and I think that as usual there will be many unforseen consequences that will erupt (for example I'm sure the ordering kiosk factories are working overtime for the millions of units that are going to replace jobs). Thus since this forum does cover the restaurant industry it is worthy of posting the story. And I do hope that it becomes a larger news story as more people are outraged by this glaring example of political manipulation regardless of whether it was a Democrat or Republican responsible.

[storewanderer]

We've been talking about this baked bread exemption on here since before the law even passed.

I don't care who put it there or how it got there. Had this ended with the sausage comment that would have been it.

The way the Governor's representatives tried to walk back the comment after he implied he admitted it, and these representatives deny it and try to say Panera was subject to the law after all is what I think warrants a major digging into the whole thing, how it happened, and why. And i don't care who is involved. Same standard.

Also don't know why it matters all that much to someone who has two dozen Panera units in the state. And what about the other Panera franchisees with the other 200 units in CA? Good investigative journalism would dig into all this. But due to who is involved that isn't happening. It is getting swept under the rug.

[veteran+]

"The article claims that a compromise with Newsom was reached through the bread exemption, with the explicit rationale being Newsom's "longstanding relationship with a Panera franchisee." These claims were made by a person who wished to remain anonymous because the talks were private. Bloomberg granted that individual anonymity, making it harder to confirm whether the rumor is true. "

From SNOPES and other debunking sites.

Also Panera was never part of the exemption.

Rumors vs facts

Also false equivalents between wrong doers if indeed something was wrong.

[storewanderer]

"The article claims that a compromise with Newsom was reached through the bread exemption, with the explicit rationale being Newsom's "longstanding relationship with a Panera franchisee." These claims were made by a person who wished to remain anonymous because the talks were private. Bloomberg granted that individual anonymity, making it harder to confirm whether the rumor is true. "

From SNOPES and other debunking sites.

Also Panera was never part of the exemption.

Rumors vs facts

Also false equivalents between wrong doers if indeed something was wrong.

Walking back from all that, regardless of why this exemption is in the law or how it got there, or who said what after the fact, why is that exemption okay?

I don't think the exemption is okay. It makes no sense and is illogical. You can read the law in plain language and it is clear Panera is exempt based on what they sell.

But let's go along with your conclusion that Panera is not excluded from the law (despite it being made clear before this law was passed with the exemption that Panera is excluded), some other businesses are excluded, and why is that okay? If it is meaningless language and there are no excluded businesses, why is the language in there in the first place? There is an intent with the language to benefit someone/something. What, is the question.

[ClownLoach]

"The article claims that a compromise with Newsom was reached through the bread exemption, with the explicit rationale being Newsom's "longstanding relationship with a Panera franchisee." These claims were made by a person who wished to remain anonymous because the talks were private. Bloomberg granted that individual anonymity, making it harder to confirm whether the rumor is true. "

From SNOPES and other debunking sites.

Also Panera was never part of the exemption.

Rumors vs facts

Also false equivalents between wrong doers if indeed something was wrong.

Walking back from all that, regardless of why this exemption is in the law or how it got there, or who said what after the fact, why is that exemption okay?

I don't think the exemption is okay. It makes no sense and is illogical. You can read the law in plain language and it is clear Panera is exempt based on what they sell.

But let's go along with your conclusion that Panera is not excluded from the law (despite it being made clear before this law was passed with the exemption that Panera is excluded), some other businesses are excluded, and why is that okay? If it is meaningless language and there are no excluded businesses, why is the language in there in the first place? There is an intent with the language to benefit someone/something. What, is the question.

There were several news reports about the Panera exemption last year from credible sources that fact check their stories. If it wasn't really an exemption then it would have been squashed last year. Only once these rumors or accusations came up that the governor was responsible did this sudden reversal occur. And although they're saying Panera isn't exempt, as you said the law is in plain language. If the other Panera franchisees decided not to pay the $20 and ignore this fast food council, they would be victorious if challenged in court because the exemption is so clear.

[storewanderer]

"The article claims that a compromise with Newsom was reached through the bread exemption, with the explicit rationale being Newsom's "longstanding relationship with a Panera franchisee." These claims were made by a person who wished to remain anonymous because the talks were private. Bloomberg granted that individual anonymity, making it harder to confirm whether the rumor is true. "

From SNOPES and other debunking sites.

Also Panera was never part of the exemption.

Rumors vs facts

Also false equivalents between wrong doers if indeed something was wrong.

Walking back from all that, regardless of why this exemption is in the law or how it got there, or who said what after the fact, why is that exemption okay?

I don't think the exemption is okay. It makes no sense and is illogical. You can read the law in plain language and it is clear Panera is exempt based on what they sell.

But let's go along with your conclusion that Panera is not excluded from the law (despite it being made clear before this law was passed with the exemption that Panera is excluded), some other businesses are excluded, and why is that okay? If it is meaningless language and there are no excluded businesses, why is the language in there in the first place? There is an intent with the language to benefit someone/something. What, is the question.

There were several news reports about the Panera exemption last year from credible sources that fact check their stories. If it wasn't really an exemption then it would have been squashed last year. Only once these rumors or accusations came up that the governor was responsible did this sudden reversal occur. And although they're saying Panera isn't exempt, as you said the law is in plain language. If the other Panera franchisees decided not to pay the $20 and ignore this fast food council, they would be victorious if challenged in court because the exemption is so clear.

I'm just trying to dig- if this law isn't for Panera, who else could it be for?

If I were a Panera franchisee in CA I'd absolutely be increasing my minimum wage to at least $20/hour (I'd be trying to figure out how to get it to $21 or $22 to try and have an edge at attracting employees), but I would not be complying with the other elements of the law like the fast food council and that other stuff since the law exempts me from doing so as a seller of loaves of bread. I suppose if franchisor Panera came and said you must comply then I would explore my legal options for if they have a right to do that (just like they have no right to tell a franchisee how to price, and no right to demand a franchisee open dine in, etc.), but I doubt they'd even get involved in the matter.

[veteran+]

"The Bread Exception
The provision exempting restaurants that make and sell bread as a stand-alone item from the rules was included in both the 2022 and 2023 bills. The exception, as we mentioned above, is real, and was achieved by not designating such restaurants as fast food. However, Newsom's office said a legal analysis determined Panera, like other chain bakeries, does not fall under the exception because it mixes its dough off-site instead of fully producing bread on the premises of its retail locations."

"Flynn, a prominent Panera franchisee erroneously described as Panera's "owner" by some sources (including the New York Post and many social media accounts), told Bloomberg he played no part in coming up with the exemption. "

[ClownLoach]

"The Bread Exception
The provision exempting restaurants that make and sell bread as a stand-alone item from the rules was included in both the 2022 and 2023 bills. The exception, as we mentioned above, is real, and was achieved by not designating such restaurants as fast food. However, Newsom's office said a legal analysis determined Panera, like other chain bakeries, does not fall under the exception because it mixes its dough off-site instead of fully producing bread on the premises of its retail locations."

"Flynn, a prominent Panera franchisee erroneously described as Panera's "owner" by some sources (including the New York Post and many social media accounts), told Bloomberg he played no part in coming up with the exemption. "

That's even more bizarre, because some of the very old locations do have large mixers visible. I believe they use them for a few simplistic types of bread from a mix. And cookies. The newer, smaller locations operate 100% off frozen commissary product. Although some old locations have closed down over the years, many remain open. The new locations are dictionary definition of fast food, small drive through boxes the total size of a Jack in the Box (look up San Marcos, CA that just opened, barely larger than a Starbucks DT). I am not even sure if these small DT units actually bake anything or if it all is delivered daily from a larger neighboring "factory store" the same way that parent company JAB has created small and large format Krispy Kreme locations.

So then who is this for? Boudin? I don't think they have 50+ locations. West Coast Sourdough? They show 56 locations, but at least a dozen are "coming soon" so I don't think that applies. The chain bagel conglomerate of Einstein/Bruegger's/Noah definitely has over 50 locations and many do mix dough and boil properly (especially Bruegger's branded shops) AND they are owned by Panera in the big conglomerate of JAB, AND I have seen loaves of bread for sale in their stores before this law was in place. But is that really going to meet the definition of Fast Food? Probably not.

Here is the problem with this creative new lie about them not qualifying because not all bread is made on site (which is inaccurate as I explained above)... I cannot locate any restaurant that qualifies for such an exception that was negotiated as "political sausage making." Why would an admittedly negotiated-for exemption be in a law that doesn't actually apply to anyone?

So once again the only conclusion I can reach is that they were caught red handed, Newsom acknowledged it so he couldn't be accused of lying, and then his staff went to work overtime to cook up a reason to overturn the agreement post haste. They have now come up with this inaccurate assessment of how the bread is baked. I still call BS.

[ClownLoach]

Hit the trifecta of writing a post and suddenly a story hits that answers it... Three times this month.

According to many employees sharing with evidence (posting their layoff notices and "transition assistance" emails), Panera is going to end baking on site and they are letting all bakers go. They can either transition to a presumably lower paid cafe worker position or they are laid off. These layoff discussions are happening right now, today, nationwide.

Sounds like this is how they decided to resolve the scandal, by no longer being a bakery. They will have three national vendors that send in thaw and serve breads. They are also supposedly removing all references to clean food with no preservatives, presumably because these new factory breads will be full of them.

I guess since they already have kiosk ordering to reduce expenses they decided they need to lower food quality to be able to pay the $20 minimum wage, and decided to re-engineer the entire company to lower their expenses to align with the new California requirements. I wonder if they will also stop producing bagels at their Einstein/Bruegger's/Noah's operation?

Make them pay the new "fast food wages" and I guess their answer is to become a fast food restaurant...

[storewanderer]

Funny. They push to get the exemption, and then they discontinue the process in store that got them the exemption.

Very funny.