Last September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 1287 into law, which includes a $20 per hour minimum wage for fast-food workers and a fast-food regulatory council which has the authority to raise the industry’s minimum wage annually. But between last fall and January, California fast-food restaurants cut about 9,500 jobs, representing a 1.3 percent change from September 2023.
That’s heartless to want people to lose their jobs when they were happy with their wages. You’re going to chip in and help them pay their bills?
Alternatively the company could’ve just exploited their labor less and dealt with slightly lower profit margins.
But of course I should have known the poor shareholders matter so much more than the workers that just want to pay rent and eat. /s
lol. You crack me up. As the article points out it made them unprofitable. So they laid people off or closed. You can’t take a lower margin when you’re already a negative margin.
If a business that pays their executives 2000x more than their average employee can’t pay their workers a living wage it’s either too mismanaged or greedy to continue. Their thin margin is their own doing.
That sucks for the workers for sure, but fast food is not a crucial business and as long as there is demand, another business will fill the void, bringing more jobs.
lol. None of these are doing that. You think a franchise owner is making 2000x times their employees ? A McDonald’s profits about 100k. That means the demise owner has to put down 1 million to get a 10% return. That means they are making 5x an employee but carry all the risk.
You keep ranting about a living wage which by itself doesn’t mean anything. They were living in their wages before which means it was a living wage. Now they have no wages. So now they have an unlivable wage.
lol you confused executives with franchise owners, that makes your argument irrelevant.
If the franchise owners are having difficulty paying their workers either they’re not running their business effectively, or the requirements from corporate are hampering their ability to pay, or the business model is unsustainable.
Your practice of blaming the government for forcing owners of these places to pay a living wage is ridiculously out of touch. If they were already making a living wage then the law wouldn’t be required.
But I don’t expect anything different from someone in the top 5%. There’s no way you can understand that struggle.
The article is talking about franchise owners. So why are you going on about some mythical executive is beyond me.
Stop saying living wage since you don’t understand the word. It doesn’t mean what you think.
I wasn’t always well to do. So I do understand the struggle. Why id rather have a job at 16 an hour rather then zero.
……how do you think corporate makes its money if not for the franchises? You yourself even mentioned the investment required by the corporation to open a franchise. That goes to the expenses of the physical stores and training staff but ALSO goes to the corporation for licensing fees. They also set requirements that franchise owners have to pay to meet.
They run the company, it’s important to scrutinize their actions.
You’re bad at this.
A living wage = wage high enough to maintain a normal standard of living.
If you can’t even pay rent on a minimum wage job (let alone food or other expenses) then you’re not making a living wage.
What do YOU think it means Mr. 5%?
I love this narritave that people working in fast food for low wages are joyfully living their best life making big macs and singing gospel songs in 4 part harmony and on their day off they swing by the community food bank and everything is great - untill the evil Liberal McSocialist takes their job away with an evil laugh Mwahahaha! and the poor franchise owner loses everything he has to wear a barrel instead of clothes and smoke Honduran cigars instead of Dominican Oh such folly! Such Tribulation! Alas Babylon!
How to say you don’t understand a franchise without actually saying it. Corporate has zero to do with this.
They had that. So now you can stop babbling about a living wage.
They were paying all their expenses. Can you cite where a laid off employee says otherwise? Only a liberal would think 0 is better than making a livable wage which they were doing