Posted on February 28th, 2022
Find below a complete transcript of this video.
What’s up fellow entrepreneurs today I want to talk about California Assembly, Bill number 257, the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act or Fast Recovery Act for short, but first I’m an attorney, but I’m not your attorney. So please seek out competent legal counsel for your specific legal question.
All right. The politicians that voted for the fast recovery act say it will provide increased rights to the state’s fast food workers, but don’t, those protections already exist for all California employees?
And do fast food workers need special protections that other California employees don’t need? And if so, why if passed by the California state eight Senate and signed into law by governor Newsom, the fast recovery act would create the fast food sector council within the California department of industrial relations and add new statutory requirements aimed at holding fast food franchises, liable for certain actions of its franchisees.
Yay. More taxes, more government interference and more losses. The fast recovery act would create an 11 member fast food sector. Council appointed by governor Newsom and state legislators to review and create workplace standards for fast food employees.
This would include wages, working conditions, training and issue, amend or appeal rules and regulations pertain to fast food employment. Isn’t that interesting. Governor Newsom who owns several high end wineries, restaurants and bars will appoint his buddies to regulate fast food.
Why not protect all service employees? If food service employees need special protection beyond what is already in place for all employees, what a slick way to look like you’re doing good while avoiding any accountability for your own businesses is this reminiscent of early lockdowns ordered by Newsom in some counties, but not Napa county where his wineries are located, who knows maybe there’s a reasonable explanation for why other counties required closures of their wineries, but not Napa county.
And maybe there’s a reasonable explanation for additional restrictions, oversight and interference with food service workers at fast food restaurants, but not at high end wineries restaurants and bars Newsom’s council would be required to hold public hearings every six months and to conduct a full view of the adequacy of minimum fast food restaurant, health safety, and employment standards.
At least once every three years, the bill would also permit a county or a city with a population greater than 200,000 to establish a local fast food sector. Council authorized to provide recommendations to the state council and would, and would prescribe requirements for the state council connection with these recommendations.
Okay, so even worse than all of the additional useless government interference in private business, AB 2 57 would have significant implications for franchises as it would require that fast food restaurant franchises be responsible for ensuring that their franchises comply with a variety of employment worker and public health and safety laws and orders, including those relate to unfair business practices, employment discrimination that California retail food, cold code, I’m sorry, labor regulations, emergency orders, standard and standards issued by the council.
Now I know some of you who have never owned a business before will say shouldn’t, we want businesses to comply with the myriad of existing labor and safety laws. Of course they should, but does making new laws that tell how businesses to follow the existing laws make any sense at all? Of course not.
That would be like making additional criminal laws and creating an entire additional government department specifically to make sure that citizens are following the laws that are already in place.
So if you ask me, this is waste fraud and abuse, the great California business plan, what’s really egregious about this bill is that if passed, the bill would make a franchiser jointly and severally liable for violations of its franchisees and would provide that specified laws may be enforced against a franchiser to the same extent that may be enforced against a franchisee.
Are these people nuts? Do they understand basic economics? Fast food is certainly not healthy, but it’s an important employer in most low to middle income communities and also an inexpensive, so source of food for a large part of our population.
So there, there really are only two responsive is that a business can take in the face of such government overreach and forced liability. They can either raise their prices to cover costs and risk, or they can leave the market again. Who do you think this will hurt? The people that depend on the jobs and the people who frequent fast food restaurants and who do you think this law benefits, plaintiff side of attorneys, of course, dear citizens of California, please stop voting for these anti-business legislators.
Even if you’re not a business owner, these people are not on your side. So if you disagree with me, then let me know in the comment section, what laws they have passed that have made your lives better till next time productive.
