Who would have thought this would have happened?

  • BunkerBuster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    “He did blame it on the minimum wage increase. Although, from my understanding, I think we were exempt from it because of the amount of locations that he personally owns. But, he did ultimately blame it on that increase,” she said.

    How about this for a new title: “Salty Restaurant owner doesn’t like new law that doesn’t apply to him, fires everyone anyway”

    Gotta love the free market, right?

    You’re licking corporate boot to defend shitty business practices.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      The law does apply to him. She’s incorrect.

      A better title would be California governor causes mass layoffs.

      The owner has no obligation to provide jobs. If the risk isn’t worth the reward, he’ll shut down. That’s how it works.

          • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The law says it only applies to businesses that have over 60 locations nationwide. Back in real life and not “woah conservative bro I’m so traumatized” world, Fosters Freeze has 62 locations. So to avoid this law, they’d have to close 3 of them. Also not sure whether it applies to franchisees, and I’m sure you have absolutely no idea either.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes it applies to franchises. So you think foster should close two and move grow again ?

              • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                No, I think they should figure out how to be profitable enough to pay their employees enough to live on in California. Not sure why that’s a difficult concept.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  They already pay them enough. 20 isn’t some Magic number. It’s a number the government made up with no logic.

                  Since inflation has lowered sales. It means fewer jobs for people who will have a hard time getting a job. Way to go California.

                  The employees said they were happy with their pay. They’d rather have 16 an hour than no job.

                  • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    I’d bet they’d rather have a wage consistent with COL and better work/life balance than an arbitrary $16/hr.

                    Nobody likes being exploited for profit.