California fast food workers will be paid at least $20 per hour next year under a new law signed Thursday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

When it takes effect on April 1, fast food workers in the state will have among the highest minimum wages in the country, according to data compiled by the University of California-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. The state’s minimum wage for all other workers is at $15.50 per hour and is already among the highest in the nation.

Newsom’s signature on Thursday reflects the power and influence of labor unions in the nation’s most populous state, which have worked to organize fast food workers in an attempt to improve their wages and working conditions.

  • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s a (not so) funny anecdote: I went to Italy years ago and got McDonald’s equivalent of a double quarter pounder with cheese for shits and giggles. Dollar for euro, the price was about the same, if not a little cheaper, in Italy. Now couple that with the fact that Italians have access to healthcare, are paid a living wage, and have ample vacation pay.

    These companies could pay their workers properly and provide benefits if they wanted to, they have the money. They don’t because fuck you

    • LetMeEatCake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But did you ever stop to think about how Italy’s system impacts the most important among us: the wealthy shareholders? A truly humane system would prioritize them at all costs.

      /s (should be obvious, but I’ll put it there to be safe.)

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah when you think about how many meals they sell in an hour, they probably only need to charge less than 20 cents more for a meal to cover the cost of employees having a livable wage.

      If were charging more for your burger in Italy, the difference in price was small enough to be unnoticeable. Because when you do the math, employees wages at a fast food joint isn’t a significant percentage of the price.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is also anecdotal but I’ve met a lot of Italians where I now live and they all say pay and working conditions in Italy are poopoo. I suppose it’s all relative though.

  • sapient [they/them]@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is an awesome victory for fast food workers and unions. People constantly shit on the folks working in customer service and kitchen jobs, but they are often gruelling and unpleasant. The people there certainly deserve it more than the CEOs and shareholders exploiting them (I mean, I’m against the entire structure, but if we’re working within that structure, then ye .).

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Money is literally worth half of what it was when I graduated high school in the 90s. My senior year I worked as a grocery clerk and made $9.50/hr while in a small city in Oregon (not expensive California). Math works out for me.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Well, there’s this, and this to say you’re right. Had the minimum wage tracked in line with production, it would be ~$26 today. If it had tracked in line with inflation, it would probably be closer to $21.45.

      That it’s been flatlined for so long means people working for minimum wage have been getting steady pay cuts for 50 years.

      It also happens that this is one of the reasons social security is straining financially- they were able to predict the demographic bulge of the baby boomers well enough, but they weren’t able to predict that wages would be constrained in the way they have been- and wages are the basis for Social Security’s funding.

    • arquebus_x@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uh… no? It’s right there at the bottom:

      The raise takes effect on April 1 and applies to workers at restaurants that have at least 60 locations nationwide

      Small time, local food joints would not be required to raise wages above the current minimum. They’d actually be able to compete more.

      What the heck are you smoking?

      • FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Smoking the usual “reactionary right-wing ignorance”

        And they’re fucking addicted to it. Get your facts out of here.

      • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indeed - not saying I agree, but this is the main talking point from the fast food companies. It’s not fair they have to pay more when (sometimes) slightly smaller businesses do not.

        • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          idk personally I think if you can’t pay a living wage you don’t have a business model, you have a loophole of exploitive policy. Like, you’re saying all this and I’m hearing “but without slaves to pick my cotton I’ll go out of business!” good

            • whofearsthenight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is the fast food lobby’s main talking point. Personally, I don’t disagree. Decide a living wage, make that the bare minimum for everyone. The talking point however is that “my poor wittle small business can’t afford to pay people enough money to live please daddy let me continue the exploitation.”

    • twopi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I literally don’t care if something is owned by a small or big business. The obsession of small businesses is absolutely stupid. I only care if prices are low and wages are high. If that means only “big businesses” can provide that because of economies of scale, than good for them, companies should be rewarded for doing that.

      If “small businesses” want to compete they should provide equity, there’s literally nothing stopping that from happening.

      There’s a local barber shop that I go to and in my province the min wage was increased 50% while the prices have climbed 80% since I started going to them. But guess what, there still the best price/service wise so I go to them. The chains cost more than double plus taxes. And a lot of the local neighboirhood goes to them.

      The only business that complain about labour laws especially laws like this that put heavier burden on larger companies are poorly run companies.

      I see good business treating people good so when things like this comes up it shows me that business people will always push against progress.

        • twopi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If it’s better for customers and workers what’s the problem (from a capitalist perspective)?

          Do you want to punish success?

          If small businesses become successful and grow do you want to purposefully stop them?

          I always ask what is the difference between a small and big business and nobody gives a good answer.

          Small business is always used as a shield to attack workers.

          Genuinely, if they don’t offer a innovative product, what’s the point of “small business”? What’s the point of a “small business” barber/retail store/grocer/etc. besides better prices?

          When does a “small business” become a “big business”? And should we stop that from happening?

          It seems to me that “small business” is just entitled people. If those same people became a “big business” they would want to crush their competition (i.e. “small business”) look at Bill Gates/Steve Jobs against IBM.

          The only thing that “small business” people want is for them to be the owner of a “big business”. That’s it.

          If you actually care about distribution of ownership and wealth. You’d advocate for co-operatives, ESOPs and distributed ownership structures. Otherwise I don’t care.

          • Neve8028@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The issue is that this inevitably leads to monopolization. When a large business is able to keep competitors out of the market, they eventually are able to raise prices without any competition which is drastically worse for consumers. There are many reasons why monopolies have historically been broken by the government and why the government should continue doing so. It’s not for anyone’s best interest other than the shareholders.

            • twopi@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How did the big business become a big business?

              I have literally seen a small business expand beyond my city and become regional over a couple decades. And probably will try to be national chains.

              From a capitalist perspective. What’s bad about monopolization? For big businesses to be big business they need to have success. Why do you want to break success? Why do you want to pick winners and losers?

              I don’t believe in any of that. I prefer distributed ownership and benefits.

              If the consumers own their own stores through a consumer cooperative than they can set the prices for themselves. And hence don’t need “competition”. And since the shareholders would be the members (i.e. the consumers), in a consumer cooperative, then that means they’ll benefit. No need to have any billionaire tyrant either local nor from a big box store.

              • Neve8028@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                From a capitalist perspective, there’s nothing wrong with monopolization. The issue is with the capitalist perspective, itself.

                I don’t believe in any of that. I prefer distributed ownership and benefits.

                That’s good. I thought I was debating some free market psycho. I think we agree on this.

    • PLAVAT🧿S@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The raise takes effect on April 1 and applies to workers at restaurants that have at least 60 locations nationwide — with an exception for restaurants that make and sell their own bread, like Panera Bread.

      Where did you get 20? And does your point about minimum locations make sense with also bringing up local joints who are explicitly exempt given said minimum?

      Edit: I see, are you saying that small businesses won’t be able to compete with this new wage minimum? Valid point there.