WEBVTT - California's Fast Act to Raise Restaurant Costs

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>All right, welcome to Chopping It Up Episode five. I'm

0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:05.480
<v Speaker 1>your host, Michael Halen, the senior restaurant and food service

0:00:05.519 --> 0:00:10.040
<v Speaker 1>analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. Today I'm joined by Riley Loguson

0:00:10.200 --> 0:00:12.840
<v Speaker 1>and Jonathan Sack to discuss the impacts of the Fast

0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:17.079
<v Speaker 1>Act and unionization on the restaurant industry. So, Riley is

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 1>a shareholder in the chair of the Global Restaurant Industry

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:24.079
<v Speaker 1>Group at Greenberg traw Rig, and Jonathan is also a

0:00:24.079 --> 0:00:26.680
<v Speaker 1>shareholder at the firm. So thanks for joining me, gentlemen,

0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:30.680
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for having us. Mike. Thanks, Mike, great to

0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:34.440
<v Speaker 1>be here. Sure, I think so. For those of you

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:39.160
<v Speaker 1>that aren't familiar, I have to very highly respected West

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:44.520
<v Speaker 1>Coasts lawyers to help kind of flesh these topics out. Uh.

0:00:44.560 --> 0:00:47.520
<v Speaker 1>So we're gonna start with the Fast Act. So, from

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:51.199
<v Speaker 1>what I understand, the fast Fast Act scaled back. So

0:00:51.280 --> 0:00:53.720
<v Speaker 1>can you give us a quick rundown about the version

0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 1>that was passed in California on August twenty nine, And

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:00.279
<v Speaker 1>you know what what should concern quick, sir? Of its

0:01:00.320 --> 0:01:07.600
<v Speaker 1>restaurants owners and franchise wars most Yeah, great, great question, Mike. Yes,

0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:11.360
<v Speaker 1>some significance. Significant amendments were made to the Act that

0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 1>came down last week. I think, taking a step back,

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:17.960
<v Speaker 1>it's important to look at this from a broad perspective

0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:21.920
<v Speaker 1>that the Fast Act, as well as the unionization efforts

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:24.679
<v Speaker 1>that were currently seeing around the company are a part

0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:29.160
<v Speaker 1>of a longstanding, well funded, and well coordinated strategy led

0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:34.840
<v Speaker 1>by the unions to change the landscape of labor in America.

0:01:35.000 --> 0:01:38.399
<v Speaker 1>And so when we look to the history of this

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 1>uh starting with the Fight for fifteen movement that began

0:01:42.440 --> 0:01:45.640
<v Speaker 1>around two thousand and twelve and two thousand thirteen, we

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:48.360
<v Speaker 1>can see the origins of that with the fast food

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:51.800
<v Speaker 1>walkouts in New York and other cities, which very quickly

0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:56.240
<v Speaker 1>led to significant minimum wage increases and acted in a

0:01:56.360 --> 0:02:00.000
<v Speaker 1>number of cities around the country, including almost immediately Los Angeles,

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York, and others. Others have followen.

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>So this is part of a strategy. It should come

0:02:07.360 --> 0:02:09.800
<v Speaker 1>as no surprise to those that have been following the

0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 1>industry that these efforts with both the Fast Act and

0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:16.640
<v Speaker 1>unionization are related and well coordinate and part of an

0:02:16.680 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>overall strategy, like I said, for groups to change the

0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:26.919
<v Speaker 1>face of labor in America, starting with restaurants and looking

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 1>obviously at other industries. So you know, it's it's important

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 1>to have that big picture. So not just viewing this

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:36.440
<v Speaker 1>in isolation and not just thinking that this applies only

0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:40.600
<v Speaker 1>to fast food restaurants, because it does not. Um the

0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>Fast Act itself. Fast food, you know, has been an

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>easy target, as unions found with a Fight for fifteen

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:49.840
<v Speaker 1>because people generally have a perception about quote unquote fast

0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:53.120
<v Speaker 1>food and their labor practices. And when they're able to

0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:56.840
<v Speaker 1>bring out employees and tell stories about how they can't

0:02:57.080 --> 0:02:59.960
<v Speaker 1>uh you know, make enough you know to know living

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:03.080
<v Speaker 1>age and so forth, and very emotional and in uh

0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:06.600
<v Speaker 1>in the public connects with that understandably. And so the

0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:11.120
<v Speaker 1>story has been uh hated through the Fast Act that

0:03:11.360 --> 0:03:14.760
<v Speaker 1>the workers in California who work in the quote unquote

0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>fast food industry need enhanced protection, and that's what this

0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:23.000
<v Speaker 1>Act is professing to provide, you know, by the creation

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:27.160
<v Speaker 1>of a council uh that will oversee uh, you know,

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:30.680
<v Speaker 1>labor practices you know, in the state of California, an

0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:33.679
<v Speaker 1>unelected body that will that will do so comprised in

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:36.000
<v Speaker 1>folks that as a part of an amendment to the

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:39.680
<v Speaker 1>Fast Act, are going to be appointed by the governor.

0:03:39.800 --> 0:03:42.040
<v Speaker 1>I think it's also important to note that in the

0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>last couple of years, especially since the pandemic, wages and

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:48.720
<v Speaker 1>benefits and restaurants in fast food around the country have

0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:54.360
<v Speaker 1>probably never been hired for employees, given UH the lack

0:03:54.400 --> 0:03:57.880
<v Speaker 1>of people returning to the workforce and competitive nature. But nevertheless,

0:03:58.000 --> 0:03:59.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, this is the premise upon which the Act

0:04:00.120 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>been created and promoted and passed by the legislature UH

0:04:06.160 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>this week. So the most significant amendment that was made

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:12.800
<v Speaker 1>to the fast Act was the removal a joint employer

0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.680
<v Speaker 1>liability and and so there were there were two big issues,

0:04:15.680 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 1>and there's the establsion of the Council which remains, but

0:04:18.960 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 1>joint employer liability was the one that was the most

0:04:22.960 --> 0:04:27.679
<v Speaker 1>significant concerned especially to the franchise restaurant and industry, because

0:04:27.800 --> 0:04:32.080
<v Speaker 1>essentially what those provisions said that was that the franchise

0:04:32.120 --> 0:04:37.040
<v Speaker 1>award would be responsible for labor code violations committed by

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:41.919
<v Speaker 1>their franchise eads, amongst other things, which essentially turned the

0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:45.799
<v Speaker 1>whole notion and rule of the separation of liability between

0:04:45.839 --> 0:04:51.360
<v Speaker 1>franchises and franchises for employment related matters absolutely upside down.

0:04:51.680 --> 0:04:55.480
<v Speaker 1>And so from a franchise or perspective, UH, it would

0:04:55.480 --> 0:05:00.599
<v Speaker 1>be very difficult to want to continue doing business in

0:05:00.760 --> 0:05:05.200
<v Speaker 1>California under that construct, given the risk of being liable

0:05:05.240 --> 0:05:08.279
<v Speaker 1>for labor code violations by franchise e for things that

0:05:08.320 --> 0:05:12.320
<v Speaker 1>the franchise arguably has no control over. Now, under the law,

0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:16.080
<v Speaker 1>if a franchise or exercises a certain amount of control

0:05:16.200 --> 0:05:18.880
<v Speaker 1>over the labor practices of a franchise e and actually

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:21.400
<v Speaker 1>stepped into the role of being a joint employer, that

0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:24.240
<v Speaker 1>could be labinility. And that's that's long standing law. But

0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:28.640
<v Speaker 1>typically the franchise laws UH require the franchise us to

0:05:28.640 --> 0:05:31.920
<v Speaker 1>be responsible for uh, you know, complying with local law

0:05:32.200 --> 0:05:36.159
<v Speaker 1>and in finding their own council to comply with with

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:40.520
<v Speaker 1>local laws. And so in order to you know, established

0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:45.360
<v Speaker 1>this joint liability, the drafters of the frand Act Fast

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:48.479
<v Speaker 1>Act made that out of a day a hard coded

0:05:48.600 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>room and so that was eliminated from this Act. Not

0:05:53.160 --> 0:05:57.120
<v Speaker 1>to say it can't come back, because the council has

0:05:57.160 --> 0:06:01.360
<v Speaker 1>the ability that's been established to promulgate new rules. And

0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:04.720
<v Speaker 1>this joint employer liability issue has been uh a hot

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:07.400
<v Speaker 1>topic for almost a decade. So you know, we're not

0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:09.200
<v Speaker 1>going to see that go away anytime soon, but at

0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:11.599
<v Speaker 1>least for the time being, it was taken out the

0:06:11.640 --> 0:06:15.719
<v Speaker 1>Fast Act. They also made some other adjustments to the Act,

0:06:15.760 --> 0:06:20.719
<v Speaker 1>including changing the original or the previous draft at thirteen

0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:24.640
<v Speaker 1>council members. Uh, you know, this one has ten. There's

0:06:24.640 --> 0:06:27.400
<v Speaker 1>some changes you know to you know, who is on

0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:32.080
<v Speaker 1>on the council. There's there's two representatives from uh fast

0:06:32.080 --> 0:06:35.320
<v Speaker 1>food quota. Because I say fast food, it's fast food

0:06:35.680 --> 0:06:39.080
<v Speaker 1>u uh, not to digress, but fast food is any

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:43.520
<v Speaker 1>establishment you know, uh, you know that sells food for

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:48.760
<v Speaker 1>immediate consumption. Two consumers who order or select items and

0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:53.039
<v Speaker 1>pay before eating, with items prepared in advance, including items

0:06:53.040 --> 0:06:55.880
<v Speaker 1>that may be prepared in bulk, they kept hot, or

0:06:55.960 --> 0:06:59.080
<v Speaker 1>with items prepared or heated quickly, or with limited or

0:06:59.120 --> 0:07:02.120
<v Speaker 1>no table service. So those are the criteria for fast food.

0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 1>And so a lot of people assume that this applied

0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:08.440
<v Speaker 1>to the just the big chain restaurants, you know. And

0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:11.880
<v Speaker 1>in the language, the new Act changes the number of

0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 1>locations earlier draft of thirty nationally, now it's a hundred nashally,

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:21.680
<v Speaker 1>So a lot of folks assume that it just applied

0:07:21.720 --> 0:07:26.360
<v Speaker 1>to traditional large fast food restaurants, but it also covers

0:07:26.440 --> 0:07:28.880
<v Speaker 1>a whole bunch of other types of restaurants that are

0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:33.240
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily associated traditional fast food, so especially any any

0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>counter service restaurant UH in the state of California. So

0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of fast casual restaurants are going to be

0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:44.640
<v Speaker 1>covered by this UH coffee UH concepts, um, even the

0:07:44.720 --> 0:07:47.760
<v Speaker 1>fat restaurants, and so it hast a much brighter net.

0:07:47.800 --> 0:07:49.800
<v Speaker 1>And it's not just franchise this which is the other

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 1>important station UH, this is effects company owned restaurants that

0:07:55.120 --> 0:08:00.040
<v Speaker 1>meet criteria. Yet there's no representation on the council for

0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:02.480
<v Speaker 1>for people from those companies as of yet, which is

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:06.559
<v Speaker 1>which is quite interesting and also concerning at the same time.

0:08:07.160 --> 0:08:09.480
<v Speaker 1>In addition, one of the other key changes that was

0:08:09.520 --> 0:08:12.160
<v Speaker 1>put in was the Council has the ability to raise

0:08:12.200 --> 0:08:15.440
<v Speaker 1>the minimum wage in California to up to twenty two

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:20.200
<v Speaker 1>dollars in our next year and afterwards three and a

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.960
<v Speaker 1>half percent increases each year thereafter for a certain number

0:08:23.960 --> 0:08:26.320
<v Speaker 1>of years. So that's something that was put in there

0:08:26.360 --> 0:08:29.280
<v Speaker 1>that when you think about it, if the council does

0:08:29.320 --> 0:08:33.000
<v Speaker 1>problemly gate bad and now restaurants that meet this quote

0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:36.640
<v Speaker 1>unquote fast food and criteria are required to pay that

0:08:36.640 --> 0:08:40.320
<v Speaker 1>That is going to affect essentially every other restaurant in

0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:43.440
<v Speaker 1>the state of California because very few are paying a

0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:47.640
<v Speaker 1>minimum wage of two an hour, so from a competitive landscape,

0:08:48.320 --> 0:08:50.920
<v Speaker 1>if that happens, they're going to be required to rethink

0:08:51.000 --> 0:08:54.560
<v Speaker 1>their compensation practices. So for that and a number of

0:08:54.559 --> 0:08:59.199
<v Speaker 1>other reasons. Uh, this act affects all restaurants in California

0:08:59.559 --> 0:09:01.120
<v Speaker 1>and every but you should have their eyes on this

0:09:01.440 --> 0:09:06.520
<v Speaker 1>because it's not going away and it's not just staying California. Yeah,

0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:10.120
<v Speaker 1>it's uh, it's really interesting. Um, there's so many, you know,

0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:12.760
<v Speaker 1>things we could talk about in uh in that response.

0:09:13.080 --> 0:09:15.319
<v Speaker 1>Um number one, you know, it's interesting that they're going

0:09:15.320 --> 0:09:20.640
<v Speaker 1>after their fast food because it's probably the easiest to automate. Right. Um,

0:09:20.679 --> 0:09:23.160
<v Speaker 1>but you know, let's kind of I guess moved to

0:09:23.240 --> 0:09:26.719
<v Speaker 1>that that last point you made about the potential in

0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:29.840
<v Speaker 1>our minimum wage and and like you say, all restaurants

0:09:29.880 --> 0:09:31.960
<v Speaker 1>are going to be impacted. And it's not just gonna

0:09:31.960 --> 0:09:34.960
<v Speaker 1>be the hourly workers, right, Like a general manager is

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:37.800
<v Speaker 1>going to require you know, it's going to want to

0:09:37.840 --> 0:09:41.280
<v Speaker 1>continue to be paid better than the hourly employees. So

0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:44.920
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna have to raise the um salaries for your

0:09:44.920 --> 0:09:48.680
<v Speaker 1>assistant GM and your gms and and everyone down the line.

0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:51.320
<v Speaker 1>You know, people that have been with you for years.

0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:56.880
<v Speaker 1>They isn't fair for them if if their experience and

0:09:57.040 --> 0:09:59.640
<v Speaker 1>very good at what their what they do, and somebody

0:09:59.640 --> 0:10:01.840
<v Speaker 1>had just walks in all the streets making twenty two dollars.

0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:05.080
<v Speaker 1>But you know, by our calculation at twenty two bucks,

0:10:05.160 --> 0:10:10.120
<v Speaker 1>California restaurants are going to have to raise prices to

0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:14.040
<v Speaker 1>maintain profitability, assuming traffic remains flat. And that's not even

0:10:14.200 --> 0:10:18.240
<v Speaker 1>including commodity inflation, which we know is running extremely hot,

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:21.000
<v Speaker 1>as hot as I've ever seen it. Right, So we

0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>think traffic gets hard, hits hit hard, requiring price increases

0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:28.520
<v Speaker 1>of over for change that can do it just so

0:10:28.559 --> 0:10:34.559
<v Speaker 1>they can remain profitable, profitable. So how concerned or politicians

0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:37.640
<v Speaker 1>about the inflationary impact of the bill? Right, because it's

0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:40.640
<v Speaker 1>usually low and middle income consumers that are shopping at

0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:44.360
<v Speaker 1>and purchasing food at these types of establishments. Um to

0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:48.240
<v Speaker 1>the politicians understand that that the wage could render many

0:10:48.280 --> 0:10:55.400
<v Speaker 1>restaurants in California unprofitable. Well, uh, politicians in California do

0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 1>not seem to really care, because if they did they

0:10:58.400 --> 0:11:02.079
<v Speaker 1>would not have passed this act. These issues have been

0:11:02.240 --> 0:11:06.640
<v Speaker 1>well covered and debated throughout the legislative process, and so

0:11:06.880 --> 0:11:12.240
<v Speaker 1>the current state of politics in California is such that uh,

0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:16.920
<v Speaker 1>anything that is essentially uh, you know, labor driven uh

0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:19.839
<v Speaker 1>is going to stand a much better chance of getting

0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:24.360
<v Speaker 1>past like this then UH, legislation that is grounded in

0:11:25.320 --> 0:11:31.600
<v Speaker 1>business judgment and economics and facts and reality and so um. Naturally,

0:11:31.840 --> 0:11:35.560
<v Speaker 1>nobody wants, you know, from a consumer standpoint, you know,

0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:40.880
<v Speaker 1>from a business standpoint to see you know, mass pricing increases,

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:45.240
<v Speaker 1>especially in the state of where we are with significant

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:49.480
<v Speaker 1>inflation and economic uncertainty. UM. But that's where we are,

0:11:49.760 --> 0:11:53.760
<v Speaker 1>and that's the situation that the passage of this act presents,

0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 1>and so uh it's going to be really interesting just

0:11:57.160 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 1>to see how this unfolds um over time, the ramification

0:12:02.440 --> 0:12:05.640
<v Speaker 1>of this. It's it's really hard to wrap your head

0:12:05.640 --> 0:12:08.840
<v Speaker 1>around how many issues this is going to create, because

0:12:09.480 --> 0:12:13.240
<v Speaker 1>there are so many uncertainties left uh, you know, wide

0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:16.320
<v Speaker 1>open that are only going to be uh known through

0:12:16.360 --> 0:12:21.120
<v Speaker 1>the implementation of this. And I think, um your point

0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:24.960
<v Speaker 1>about the substantial price increases and so forth, that's all

0:12:25.559 --> 0:12:29.200
<v Speaker 1>what we've been hearing as well twenty percent or or

0:12:29.440 --> 0:12:32.440
<v Speaker 1>or more, but it's it's really hard to tell. And

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:37.120
<v Speaker 1>also behind the backdrop of this, California also has probably

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:42.160
<v Speaker 1>the most complex and expensive and litigious, uh you know,

0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:47.200
<v Speaker 1>labor scheme in terms of class action lawsuits and other things.

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:51.640
<v Speaker 1>That has been a problem for operating in California for

0:12:51.720 --> 0:12:55.720
<v Speaker 1>many years with wage and our claims, POGA claims and others.

0:12:56.160 --> 0:12:59.679
<v Speaker 1>So you drop this into the suit and you have

0:12:59.800 --> 0:13:04.160
<v Speaker 1>a situation that is very complex and very concerning and

0:13:04.640 --> 0:13:09.880
<v Speaker 1>uh incredibly expensive, which um, the consumer is going to

0:13:09.960 --> 0:13:13.000
<v Speaker 1>ultimately have to pay for the cost of this that

0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:17.400
<v Speaker 1>the employees are as well, because it's going to cost jobs. Uh,

0:13:17.640 --> 0:13:22.160
<v Speaker 1>it's going to cost businesses not to hire to replace

0:13:22.320 --> 0:13:25.560
<v Speaker 1>labor with technology to do the things they've been doing

0:13:25.760 --> 0:13:30.640
<v Speaker 1>over the years, but just on a much more expedited scale. Yeah,

0:13:30.679 --> 0:13:32.360
<v Speaker 1>for sure, a lot of these technologies are going to

0:13:32.400 --> 0:13:34.360
<v Speaker 1>start to have an our r o I at twenty

0:13:34.400 --> 0:13:36.480
<v Speaker 1>two hours an hour. And you know, some of the

0:13:36.559 --> 0:13:39.600
<v Speaker 1>chans we cover, like Tripotle a is um has robots

0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:43.320
<v Speaker 1>that are making tortilla chips and uh, you know Jack

0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:46.880
<v Speaker 1>in the Box is working with automation uh in the

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:49.360
<v Speaker 1>kitchens as well. These are two companies that that are

0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:52.440
<v Speaker 1>hebably um, that are based out of California and have

0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:55.360
<v Speaker 1>a large percentage of the restaurants in the States, so

0:13:55.480 --> 0:13:59.480
<v Speaker 1>that I guess they've seen this uh coming down the pike.

0:13:59.720 --> 0:14:02.280
<v Speaker 1>But um, you know, I guess getting back a little

0:14:02.280 --> 0:14:05.080
<v Speaker 1>bit to the joint employer provision. You know, why do

0:14:05.120 --> 0:14:07.440
<v Speaker 1>you think that was pulled? I mean, obviously it would

0:14:07.440 --> 0:14:10.040
<v Speaker 1>have been a significant blow to the franchise industry and

0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 1>turned decades of contract law on its head. I mean,

0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:16.480
<v Speaker 1>was this the cooler heads prevail? Does this make it

0:14:16.520 --> 0:14:19.840
<v Speaker 1>easier to pass? Was this something that the Governor's office

0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:23.880
<v Speaker 1>kind of required? Correct? From what I understand, the amendments

0:14:23.880 --> 0:14:25.960
<v Speaker 1>are almost all of them that came through came directly

0:14:26.000 --> 0:14:28.560
<v Speaker 1>from the Governor's office, and that was if this is

0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:31.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be passed, that provision needs to be removed.

0:14:31.240 --> 0:14:34.200
<v Speaker 1>And that was, in my personal opinion, absolutely the right

0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:36.320
<v Speaker 1>right thing to do, as flow as the opinion of others.

0:14:37.000 --> 0:14:43.840
<v Speaker 1>Imposing that type of liability on franchise oors would um

0:14:44.080 --> 0:14:48.160
<v Speaker 1>create a situation in California where existing and new franchise

0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:52.560
<v Speaker 1>oars would not do business there and the franchise restaurant

0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:56.280
<v Speaker 1>business in California is such a significant part of the

0:14:56.280 --> 0:15:02.400
<v Speaker 1>California economy, providing a very substantial number of jobs. And

0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, we had clients reaching out, as as many

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:09.800
<v Speaker 1>others have over the course of many months, urging the

0:15:09.800 --> 0:15:13.120
<v Speaker 1>removal of this provision. So it's it's good to see

0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:16.680
<v Speaker 1>that it was removed at least for now. Um. But

0:15:17.080 --> 0:15:19.320
<v Speaker 1>as said at the outside of the conversation, this is

0:15:19.360 --> 0:15:22.120
<v Speaker 1>an issue that's been going around for a very long

0:15:22.200 --> 0:15:24.360
<v Speaker 1>time outside of the fast Act, and so you know,

0:15:24.400 --> 0:15:26.320
<v Speaker 1>it's just kind of a wait and see, you know,

0:15:26.360 --> 0:15:30.280
<v Speaker 1>how much, uh or if ever this will return. And

0:15:30.320 --> 0:15:32.720
<v Speaker 1>I know that was a case was brought before the

0:15:32.800 --> 0:15:36.960
<v Speaker 1>n l RB, McDonald's case right during the abomb administration.

0:15:37.000 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 1>So so I guess is that something you expect the

0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:42.640
<v Speaker 1>n l RB to tackle on a national level. It

0:15:42.680 --> 0:15:46.400
<v Speaker 1>sounds like that's that's probably a better way, uh for

0:15:46.440 --> 0:15:51.600
<v Speaker 1>them to approach it versus you know, harming a state. Um. Yeah,

0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:54.040
<v Speaker 1>I think we may see that being revisited. And I

0:15:54.080 --> 0:15:56.720
<v Speaker 1>don't know if John has anything more current on that,

0:15:56.840 --> 0:15:58.880
<v Speaker 1>but it's it's something you know that's been out there

0:15:58.920 --> 0:16:02.400
<v Speaker 1>for a while. Yeah, it is a it is a

0:16:02.440 --> 0:16:05.520
<v Speaker 1>mechanism that the n LRB likes to likes to challenge

0:16:05.760 --> 0:16:08.480
<v Speaker 1>UM at the behest at the behest of the people

0:16:08.520 --> 0:16:12.720
<v Speaker 1>who file the untre labor practice charges and the election petitions,

0:16:12.760 --> 0:16:16.080
<v Speaker 1>mainly unions UM, in that it it can make it

0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:20.600
<v Speaker 1>easier for the UM for the unions too, uh to

0:16:20.840 --> 0:16:25.760
<v Speaker 1>organize with relatively less effort. Thanks. And uh so it

0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:28.520
<v Speaker 1>sounds like the Governor's office has had had a hand

0:16:28.560 --> 0:16:31.320
<v Speaker 1>in these amendments. So so what are the odds I

0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:34.280
<v Speaker 1>guess where you placing the odds right now that Governor

0:16:34.320 --> 0:16:37.840
<v Speaker 1>knews some signs of bill into law. From what we

0:16:37.880 --> 0:16:40.440
<v Speaker 1>are hearing, the odds are are very high that uh

0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:46.120
<v Speaker 1>government signs it into law. And uh and you know,

0:16:46.240 --> 0:16:48.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if I'm off base asking this question,

0:16:48.800 --> 0:16:51.680
<v Speaker 1>but uh, you know, well, us I guess is why

0:16:51.680 --> 0:16:53.640
<v Speaker 1>I have you on here. Well, the fast Stact hold

0:16:53.680 --> 0:16:56.160
<v Speaker 1>up against legal challenges, I mean, do you see any

0:16:56.160 --> 0:17:00.320
<v Speaker 1>potential legal challenges uh to this bill? Yeah, there are

0:17:00.360 --> 0:17:03.600
<v Speaker 1>potential legal challenges the bill. Uh, you know, both the

0:17:03.680 --> 0:17:07.560
<v Speaker 1>establishment the Council and UM the joint and player liability.

0:17:07.800 --> 0:17:10.320
<v Speaker 1>The last several weeks that's been a hot topic. What

0:17:10.400 --> 0:17:12.639
<v Speaker 1>if this passes, will there be a legal challenge. So

0:17:13.200 --> 0:17:18.000
<v Speaker 1>there are potential legal challenges to the bill, and UH,

0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:20.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure if they will be made, but my

0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:23.760
<v Speaker 1>assumption is that there will be uh some some legal challenges.

0:17:23.840 --> 0:17:28.440
<v Speaker 1>And also there's some other potential options UH in California

0:17:28.600 --> 0:17:31.560
<v Speaker 1>that I'm not as well versed in personally as some

0:17:31.640 --> 0:17:34.080
<v Speaker 1>of our government affairs and policy team members are on

0:17:34.119 --> 0:17:38.040
<v Speaker 1>the ground of Sacramento, but includes voter referendum and these

0:17:38.040 --> 0:17:40.000
<v Speaker 1>types of items that you know are a little more

0:17:40.119 --> 0:17:43.439
<v Speaker 1>difficult than time consuming and expensive to make happen, but

0:17:43.520 --> 0:17:48.000
<v Speaker 1>there there are potential options to challenge this. So UM,

0:17:48.040 --> 0:17:50.840
<v Speaker 1>I think for the time being where a wait and

0:17:50.840 --> 0:17:53.159
<v Speaker 1>see mode one. First see if the governor does sign it,

0:17:53.240 --> 0:17:56.159
<v Speaker 1>which we assume he will, and UH then see what

0:17:56.240 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 1>unfolds O good stuff. And UH do you expect of

0:18:00.359 --> 0:18:03.240
<v Speaker 1>the states to follow suit should the bill get passed?

0:18:03.280 --> 0:18:05.600
<v Speaker 1>And if so, which which one should we keep an

0:18:05.600 --> 0:18:10.720
<v Speaker 1>eye on. We do expect to see similar efforts in

0:18:11.080 --> 0:18:14.040
<v Speaker 1>other states, and this is similar to the fight for

0:18:14.160 --> 0:18:18.520
<v Speaker 1>fifteen as I mentioned in beginning to call. Once California

0:18:18.600 --> 0:18:22.200
<v Speaker 1>does something, UM, it sets the pace for some other

0:18:22.480 --> 0:18:28.880
<v Speaker 1>states in cities, and so we would expect uh, Oregon uh.

0:18:29.119 --> 0:18:34.760
<v Speaker 1>City of Portland, UH, Seattle, State of Washington, UH, New York,

0:18:34.840 --> 0:18:41.040
<v Speaker 1>possibly other states that have been early adopters of UH

0:18:41.040 --> 0:18:43.200
<v Speaker 1>through the Fight for fifteen efforts that have been more

0:18:43.240 --> 0:18:47.120
<v Speaker 1>progressive in these areas, we would expect them to be

0:18:47.840 --> 0:18:53.440
<v Speaker 1>likely candidates for this type of legislation UH uh. And

0:18:53.680 --> 0:18:56.800
<v Speaker 1>we would expect that to be coordinated through those that

0:18:56.840 --> 0:19:00.480
<v Speaker 1>are behind the Fast Act. Who this is. We said,

0:19:00.560 --> 0:19:02.680
<v Speaker 1>this is part of a concerted effort to change the

0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:08.400
<v Speaker 1>face of labor nationally. So those are the easier UH

0:19:08.440 --> 0:19:11.119
<v Speaker 1>targets geographically, and so we would expect those to be

0:19:11.119 --> 0:19:14.600
<v Speaker 1>focused on first, but there are likely other places where

0:19:14.640 --> 0:19:17.920
<v Speaker 1>they have been very active. You know, we're seeing unionization

0:19:17.920 --> 0:19:21.400
<v Speaker 1>efforts in general touch on a few moments and in

0:19:21.600 --> 0:19:25.000
<v Speaker 1>places where we thought they wouldn't occur in Texas, uh.

0:19:25.040 --> 0:19:27.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, and and so we're living in a very

0:19:27.800 --> 0:19:30.840
<v Speaker 1>different world than we were a few years ago in

0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:33.959
<v Speaker 1>terms of how you know, these things can move, you know,

0:19:34.040 --> 0:19:36.879
<v Speaker 1>and you know how quickly they can grant gain the

0:19:36.960 --> 0:19:44.080
<v Speaker 1>ground UH swell of support in these local communities. Great,

0:19:44.119 --> 0:19:46.480
<v Speaker 1>and we're gonna wrap up our discussion about the Fast

0:19:46.480 --> 0:19:50.439
<v Speaker 1>Act UH here. UM, you know, thank you both. So

0:19:50.520 --> 0:19:52.200
<v Speaker 1>much for your time before we go. What's the best

0:19:52.200 --> 0:19:55.720
<v Speaker 1>way for our listeners to contact you? Oh, uh can

0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:59.920
<v Speaker 1>email me. My information is online, as is uh John's.

0:20:00.359 --> 0:20:04.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm Riley Logison, you know at Greenberg Trog. So Riley

0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:09.440
<v Speaker 1>dot loguson at Greenberg Troig and uh John, Yes, Jonathan

0:20:09.480 --> 0:20:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Sack also from Greenberg Trig and my information is online

0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:15.960
<v Speaker 1>and my email is Sack J. S A C k

0:20:16.800 --> 0:20:20.639
<v Speaker 1>J at g T law dot com. Thanks for your time, guys, Yeah,

0:20:20.680 --> 0:20:21.160
<v Speaker 1>thanks Bike