Here come the price increases!

[veteran+]

Lots of broadstroking, rationalizing and conflating going on but, oh well

Necessary Evil is not free.

[BillyGr]

Also, the sit-down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast-food places...

The question is, will it really do that, at least for all employees?

While it is understandable that smaller, local or small chain fast-food type places would have to raise pay to compete for help with the big brands, it may not be as necessary for sit-down restaurants, since employees there may be willing to work for a lower up front pay rate, knowing that they will eventually get even more than the $20/hour when tips are factored in.

Maybe more of an issue in the kitchen, but even there someone who is actually "cooking" stuff may not be happy going to a fast-food place where they are not doing much, if any, actual cooking.

[veteran+]

Also, the sit-down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast-food places...

The question is, will it really do that, at least for all employees?

While it is understandable that smaller, local or small chain fast-food type places would have to raise pay to compete for help with the big brands, it may not be as necessary for sit-down restaurants, since employees there may be willing to work for a lower up front pay rate, knowing that they will eventually get even more than the $20/hour when tips are factored in.

Maybe more of an issue in the kitchen, but even there someone who is actually "cooking" stuff may not be happy going to a fast-food place where they are not doing much, if any, actual cooking.

Great point!!

[veteran+]

In response, to prevent the same type of advancement among their employees, restaurant owners organized the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in 1919, a powerful organization created to preserve and expand the subminimum wage.

This is where the tip culture in America was established unlike Europe. They convinced (bribed) the U.S. government to agree. This accomplished the idea for customers to subsidize their payroll expenses under the guise of encouraging employees to deliver better customer service.

Very effective and long lasting scheme. And Americans bought into it.

[reymann]

Price increases already happening at Jack in the Box in Fresno. Most combo items went up by around $1. They are going to close dining rooms at 9pm instead of 10pm beginning in June.

[ClownLoach]

Why? So other businesses could open up and sell the same exact products but not be part of the law? Instead of getting the fast food from a "fast food place" now you get it from a counter in a gas station or a counter in a grocery store or a counter attached to a sit down restaurant so those places can get around this new law? Then what has been accomplished...?

Not all consumers have the time or wealth for sit down restaurants either. Not everyone is so privileged to always be able to go to a sit down restaurant. Not to mention most of the chain sit down restaurants which may be within budget for fast food consumers to switch to serve you what is basically the same as fast food (frozen/reheated stuff, fried stuff) presented on a glass plate and with a tip involved.

Also the sit down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast food places...

There is zero justification for the attack that has been launched on the fast food industry in California. Also interesting how Starbucks is carefully exempted. If you want to attack all food service businesses and put these rules on them then maybe okay but I even think that is too narrow. Maybe all "food" businesses- and that would include grocery stores.

But the big winner again will be the big corporations who get more royalties. As with most of these so called "Progressive" initiatives which seem to be funded by dark money from big money billionaires (not unlike other political initiatives that get pushed by other "groups") under the guise of helping people (higher wage in this case- which will be washed out through cuts in hours/higher prices on items purchased) the end result is really just even more money for big corporations through the higher royalties they'll receive from the increased prices. I wouldn't be surprised if the investors in the franchisors funded this whole thing. Playing the employees as total tools and fools under the guise of "helping" them.

Being a retail focused board, it should be noted the majority of retailers are cutting lunches to 30 minutes as they reduce their staffing. If fast food is severely curtailed then these employees will not be able to leave the store and eat. They certainly can't go to a sit down restaurant. You can say "well they should bring their lunch" but I always hated the break room experience and needed to get out and breathe fresh air. Fast food is a necessary evil.

At In & Out the employees have about 10 minutes to eat their lunch. They can order their food only after they punch out. Good luck with that. Indigestion?

That is highly unlikely, as it is a fabulous class action lawsuit that would pay out in the billions based on their store and employee count in California. If you know someone actually getting a ten minute lunch when mandated to have a 30 they should call a lawyer as they're going to be fabulously rich. As in they're going to get about a months pay for every single missed lunch. There is no employee law subject that is more litigated in California than meal and rest break law where the employer is assumed guilty until proven innocent under the law. They can however be compensated with PIL or Pay In Lieu, where they get one hour of additional pay for not being able to take their 30 minute uninterrupted off the clock lunch. Free food is not considered compensation. With the ample staffing of In-N-Out I do not see why they would ever have a need for PIL payouts, but I could see that at bare bones fast food places that these days are running with a supervisor and only one or two employees.

I know several ex employees and managers from In-N-Out and I hear the good, the bad and the ugly. None of them ever had any issue with meals and rest breaks aside from unexpected nightmare rushes like a sporting event down the street that nobody scheduled for like a playoff game, and they did delay meals, extend shifts and compensate for the missed breaks as per the law. They also spoke of the occasional religious posting like you shared today, and prayers said at the grand opening of a new store but that was about it. Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby amongst others are far more religious, yet I've seen the Pride flag on pins worn by CfA employees at least half a dozen times in recent years. They all said the worst part of working there was cleaning the bathrooms where unspeakable atrocities would seemingly happen daily. If one was told "Hey Bill, need you to go check out the restroom" that was code for a massive cleanup operation.

If you're saying that they only have about ten minutes left once they get their food, yeah I can see that but it is probably better than the many times I had to eat and drive back to work in the bad old days of 30 minute lunches where I might have had three minutes to eat before running back in and clocking back in. Although the cook process for a burger at INO is 6 minutes so unless the entire grill is full and no lines are moving once again I have trouble understanding how one could only have ten minutes to eat once served.

One of the topics I did hear is that the so called "Fast Food Council" is looking for all lunches to be a minimum of one hour, basically to force the restaurant to staff even more people on duty for coverage. I think it will just result in even more closures as they're forced to overstaff.

[storewanderer]

Also, the sit-down restaurants will suffer from this too as employees can get the $20/hr at fast food and will go work at fast food instead... they'll need to increase wages as well, which in turn causes the price increase, which in turn lands them in the same exact spot as the fast-food places...

The question is, will it really do that, at least for all employees?

While it is understandable that smaller, local or small chain fast-food type places would have to raise pay to compete for help with the big brands, it may not be as necessary for sit-down restaurants, since employees there may be willing to work for a lower up front pay rate, knowing that they will eventually get even more than the $20/hour when tips are factored in.

Maybe more of an issue in the kitchen, but even there someone who is actually "cooking" stuff may not be happy going to a fast-food place where they are not doing much, if any, actual cooking.

I was thinking back of house staff is going to be the bigger issue for the restaurants. Not only those cooking but also cleaning.

Servers can still do a lot better at a regular restaurant if they get to keep 100% of the tips.

For the places that do a tip pool thing where some tips get allocated to back of house it will just depend on the tips collected.

In a lot of chain restaurants they aren't doing much of any "actual cooking" either.

[storewanderer]

In response, to prevent the same type of advancement among their employees, restaurant owners organized the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in 1919, a powerful organization created to preserve and expand the subminimum wage.

This is where the tip culture in America was established unlike Europe. They convinced (bribed) the U.S. government to agree. This accomplished the idea for customers to subsidize their payroll expenses under the guise of encouraging employees to deliver better customer service.

Very effective and long lasting scheme. And Americans bought into it.

It is important to note that fast food restaurants have never paid "subminimum wage" since they do not attach tips to transactions as they do not solicit for tips typically. I know Starbucks and Five Guys try to capture tips, but they are not doing this "subminimum wage" thing. That is a sit down restaurant thing.

Also sit down restaurants in many states, CA/NV/OR/WA included, no longer pay "subminimum wage" either. But if you are out in ID/UT/AZ/many other states, then they do still do that subminimum wage thing in restaurants there.
https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/ ... -by-state/

I do not think the subminimum wage thing should be legal anywhere. The concept of paying employees as little as $2.13 per hour and expecting customers to pay the rest of the wage to the employee by way of tips is ridiculous. The sit down restaurant business model that relies on this type of a model in most of the US is severely broken.

But instead of going after that these "Progressive" activist groups go attack fast food restaurants in CA.

[HCal]

I do not understand why these chains do not understand what an issue drink pricing is and how it upsets/annoys customers. 2.99 for a fast food drink is simply too high. Wendys still has a 16oz drink at .99 here and Jack in the Box has a 16oz drink at 1.79 (just increased) but you cannot order either on the app/kiosk, only at the cash register.

They understand it just fine. They just don't care. What are you going to do, not get a drink? Most people want a drink with their meal. Sure, you can go to CVS or a gas station and buy a drink first, but that defeats the point of fast food, which is to save time. So while people may be annoyed, the vast majority of them will cough up the $2.99 for a drink.

[HCal]

So really the joke is on everyone who was picketing for these big wages, because most of the raise is going out the door to the IRS and FTB as soon as it becomes anything close to a "living wage" negating the entire activity.

Taxes are marginal. If a single person is making 50k a year, then 22% of any additional money they make will go to federal taxes, and (in California) 6% to state taxes. There is no way "most" of the raise can go to taxes, because the highest marginal tax rate in the US is 37%, for income over 500k.

Employers often tell their employees that they don't need a raise because most of it will go to taxes. This is a lie designed to get employees to accept lower wages.