Task Order #1 to Master Agreement
CLIENT: City of Crescent City
MASTER AGREEMENT DATE: 19 February 2019
JOB NUMBER: 021000.049
SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
1. Client shall provide:
A. Information requested by Consultant
B. Work space, access to wi-fi and printers
2. Consultant shall perform the following services:
A. SHN will provide both on-site and remote engineering support during transitioning period (3 months) for the outgoing Public Works Director. Support will include remote participation in virtual meetings, telephone calls, communications with technical and consultant vendors; preparation of emails, memos, reports typically prepared by the Public Works Director, on-site involvement and coordination with consultants and vendors; and other support as requested.
COMPENSATION:
Client agrees to compensate Consultant as follows:
Time and materials in accordance with the 2019 Schedule of Charges in the Master Agreement Total fees to not exceed $82,000 without the express written authorization of Client.
CONDITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS:
This Task Order shall be made to the original Agreement between Client and SHN on the date referenced above. All other conditions and provisions of Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
APPROVED
CLIENT: CONSULTANT:
BY:__________________________________ BY:____________________________________ __________________________________
NAME:_______________________________ NAME:__Tina M. Blakley, P.E., PMP__________ TITLE:________________________________ TITLE:___Senior Engineer/Project Manager____ DATE:________________________________ DATE:___August 11, 2022__________________ [End of Task Order]
Phone: (707) 441-8855 Email: [email protected] Web: shn-engr.com 812 W. Wabash Avenue, Eureka, CA 95501-2138
CIVIL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • GEOSCIENCES • PLANNING • SURVEYING Reference: 022000.049
August 11, 2022
Jonathan Olson, City Engineer/Director of Public Works [email protected] City of Crescent City
377 J Street
Crescent City, CA 95531
Subject: Engineering Project Management Services
Dear Jonathan Olson:
The following is the anticipated scope and fee for several near-term capital improvement projects. As we discussed in our initial meeting on June 29, 2022 and again when we met in Crescent City last week, several of the City’s upcoming capital improvement projects require engineering support including bid support and construction management. Per your request, we have also included a new task to provide interim engineering/transition support for the role of City Engineer/Public Works Director.
SHN will prepare scope and fee estimates for any new or additional tasks upon request once additional details and schedule of activities become available. It is assumed that if work contained herein are approved that the City will provide one or more task order number along with authorization to proceed.
Details specific to each of the tasks included in this proposal are shown below.
Scope of Work
Task 1. Engineering Project Management/Transitioning Support for City Engineer/Public Works Director
1. SHN will provide both on-site and remote engineering support during transitioning period for the outgoing City Engineer/Public Works Director. Support will include both remote participation in virtual meetings, telephone calls, communications with technical and consultant vendors; preparation of emails, memos, reports typically prepared by the City Engineer/Public Works Director, on-site involvement and coordination with consultants and vendors; and other support as requested.
2. Task 1 will be billed on a time and materials basis and assumes:
a. The initial transition support period is estimated based on a minimum of three months, which can be extended for additional periods of time as requested by the City. b. Engineering support assumes 75% FTE contribution from Tina Blakley, P.E., PMP who is a Senior Engineer/Project Manager. Such support will include both Jonathon Olson
Engineering Project Management Services
August 11, 2022
\\eureka\Projects\2022\Promos\022000.049-CC-CIP-ConstM\Setup\TO1-PM-Assistance\20220811- JOlsonCrescentCity-EngPM-ScopeAndFee.docx
remote and in-person support with the assumption that Ms. Blakley will be working in Crescent City a minimum of two consecutive days per week with the associated travel/lodging/per diem. Remaining support will be provided remotely from Coos Bay, or as otherwise requested by the City. Costs for this activity will be billed on a time and materials basis.
c. It is possible that the performance of this work activity will occur within the same time period as for Task 2 activities described below. Engineering time for Tina Blakley will only be billed once on a time and materials basis for the common period of performance.
Exclusions
SHN will not be responsible for any services not specifically listed under the scope of work presented above.
Fee Summary
SHN will provide the work described in the above scope of work on a time and expenses basis. Costs associated with each task are estimates based on an assumed level of effort. One task may require less effort than anticipated and another task may require more effort than anticipated. Therefore, the costs associated with one task may exceed the task budget, while another task may cost less than the task budget. The total project fee is our proposed contract budget.
Task 1. Engineering/Transitioning Support for City Engineer/Public Works Director$81,900 City Engineer/Public Works Director
Thank you for providing SHN with the opportunity to work on this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding the information provided in this proposal, please call me at (541) 266-9890.
Sincerely,
SHN
Tina M. Blakley, PE, PMP
Senior Engineer, Project Manager
TMB:dkl
Attachments: 1. SHN Fee Schedule
\\eureka\pubs\FORMS\Corp\Fee Schedules\FEESCH-2022Table.docx SHN 2022 Fee Schedule 1 Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc.
Fee Schedule
January 1, 2022
When accurate definition of the proposed work is not possible, an hourly charge out rate for determining compensation shall be used. Hourly charge rates include payroll costs, overhead, and profit. Hourly services are billed portal to portal and are subject to a 2-hour minimum. Current rates are as follows:
Hourly Charge Rates
Position1 Hourly Rates
Senior Engineer $ 160.00 - $ 210.00
Senior Geotechnical Engineer $ 150.00 - $ 200.00
Senior Engineering Geologist $ 150.00 - $ 200.00
Senior Geologist $ 140.00 - $ 180.00
Senior Planner $ 130.00 - $ 180.00
Senior Environmental Scientist $ 150.00 - $ 190.00
Senior Land Surveyor $ 130.00 - $ 170.00
Project Manager $ 100.00 - $ 180.00
Project Engineer $ 110.00 - $ 150.00
Project Geologist $ 110.00 - $ 155.00
Project Land Surveyor $ 100.00 - $ 130.00
Associate Planner $ 90.00 - $ 130.00
Associate Environmental Scientist $ 110.00 - $ 140.00
Staff Engineer $ 90.00 - $ 130.00
Staff Geologist $ 90.00 - $ 130.00
Staff Planner $ 80.00 - $ 120.00
Staff Environmental Scientist $ 90.00 - $ 130.00
Staff Land Surveyor3 $ 90.00 - $ 250.003
Certified Industrial Hygienist $ 110.00 - $ 155.00
GIS/UAV Specialist $ 80.00 - $ 135.00
Construction Inspector3 $ 90.00 - $ 270.003
Lab/Field Technician3 $ 90.00 - $ 250.003
Survey Technician3 $ 80.00 - $ 250.003
Engineering Technician/Draftsperson $ 90.00 - $ 130.00
Technical Writer $ 80.00 - $ 100.00
Clerical $ 70.00 - $ 90.00
Expert Witness2,4 $ 175.00 - $ 275.00
1 Incidental expenses, i.e., lodging, meals, airplane tickets, etc., are billed at cost plus 15%. 2 Minimum daily charge is four hours.
3 Rates depend on the specific personnel assigned and if prevailing wage rates are required in the area of work. 4 Rates for Expert Witness are charged for preparation and testimony for both deposition(s) and trial(s). \\eureka\pubs\FORMS\Corp\Fee Schedules\FEESCH-2022Table.docx SHN 2022 Fee Schedule 2 Reimbursables
The following direct charges are charged in addition to the hourly charge rates set forth above.
Direct Charges:
CADD plots (black & white) $ 0.40/sq. ft.
CADD plots (color) $ 0.90/sq. ft.
Copies $ 0.15/ea.
Equipment and other expenditures (required for projects) Cost + 15% Field office Cost + 15%
Filing fees, telephone expense, etc. Cost + 15%
Iron pipe, monuments, flagging, etc. Cost + 15%
Mylars $ 15.00
Services of other consultants Cost + 15%
Stakes, hubs, lath, etc. Cost + 15%
Subsistence, air travel, etc. Cost + 15%
Vehicles $ 50.00/day
Field Testing and Equipment:
Anchor bolt tension testing $ 80.00/day plus operator
CO2 Meter $ 10.00/day
Concrete Compression Impact Hammer $ 50.00/day*+
Core Drilling Machine $ 75.00/day + $3.00/inch cored
Dissolved Oxygen Meter $ 75.00/day*+
Expendable Supplies $ 40.00/day*+
Fyrite Meter $ 33.00/day*+
Generator $ 58.00/day*+
Geophysical Equipment By Quotation
Grundfos Controller & Pump $275.00/day
Hand Auger $ 36.00/day
Health & Safety Level D $ 35.00/day*+
Health & Safety Level C $ 60.00/day*+
High Pressure Controller $ 60.00/day*+
Inclinometer $200.00/day*
LEL Meter $ 73.00/day*+
Nuclear Density Testing $ 25.00/hour plus operator
Other equipment including drill rigs, backhoes, etc. Cost + 15% ORP Meter $ 15.00/day
OVA $145.00/day*+
Peristaltic Pump $ 50.00/day*+
pH/Conductivity Meter $ 58.00/day*+
Pumps $ 45.00/day*+
Quad (ATV) $150.00/day
Rebar Locating Device $ 40.00/day plus operator
* 1/2 Day Minimum Charge.
+ 25% Weekly Discount, 40% Monthly Discount.
(1) If concrete is sampled and delivered to SHN lab by outside contractor, add $5.00/ea. for processing and curing per ASTM C-31.
\\eureka\pubs\FORMS\Corp\Fee Schedules\FEESCH-2022Table.docx SHN 2022 Fee Schedule 3 Reimbursables, Continued
Field Testing and Equipment, Continued:
Roto-hammer $ 50.00/day*+
Skidmore-Wilhelm Bolt Tension Calibration $150.00/day
Soil/Gas Purge Pumps $ 30.00/day*+
Soil Gas Probes $200.00/day*+
Torque Wrench (0 to 250 ft lbs) $ 25.00/day
Torque Wrench (250 to 1,000 ft lbs) $ 50.00/day
Turbidity Meter $ 29.00/day*+
Ultrasonic Test Device $ 25.00/hour plus operator
Vapor Extraction System $500.00/day*+
Water Level Data Logger $ 60.00/day*+
Water Level Meter $ 36.00/day*+
Well Point $ 50.00/day
Survey Equipment:
GPS Station $300.00/day*
Level $ 25.00/day*
Resource GPS $ 150.00/day*
Robotic Total Station $ 300.00/day
Total Station $ 7.50/hour
Total Station w/Data Collector $ 100.00/day
Toughbook $ 150.00/day*
Trimble GeoXT GPS Unit $ 150.00/day*
Laboratory Tests:
Asphalt Briquette Compaction $ 75.00/ea.(1)
Asphalt Bulk Specific Gravity $ 40.00/ea.
Asphalt Content by Nuclear Method $ 75.00/test
Asphalt Content Gauge Calibration $200.00/ea.
Asphalt Extraction (% Bitumen) On Request
Asphalt (Hveem) Mix Design On Request
Brass Tube (Liner) $ 5.00/ea.
Cleanness Value (CT 227) $ 75.00/ea.
Compaction Curves (ASTM D 1557 or Caltrans CT216) $300.00/test Compaction Curve Check Point $100.00/ea.
Concrete Compressive Strength (CT 521 or ASTM C39) $ 30.00/ea.(2) Concrete Linear Shrinkage (3 Bars) $300.00
Concrete Moisture $ 50.00/test (floor test)
Consolidation Test $350.00/ea.
Direct Shear, per point: (ASTM D3080)
Consolidated-Drained (CD) $145.00/point
Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) (Modified ASTM) $115.00/point Consolidated-Undrained (CU) (Modified ASTM) $130.00/point Additional cycles (each) $ 65.00/ea.
* 1/2 Day Minimum Charge.
+ 25% Weekly Discount, 40% Monthly Discount.
(1) If asphalt is delivered to SHN lab unmixed, add $75.00/ea. for processing and mixing per Caltrans CT304. (2) If concrete is sampled and delivered to SHN lab by outside contractor, add $5.00/ea. for processing and curing per ASTM C-31.
\\eureka\pubs\FORMS\Corp\Fee Schedules\FEESCH-2022Table.docx SHN 2022 Fee Schedule 4 Reimbursables, Continued
Laboratory Tests, Continued:
Disposable Concrete Molds $ 5.00/ea.
Durability Index $ 75.00/ea.
Expansion Index $175.00/test
Fireproofing Density $ 50.00/ea.
Grout Compressive Strength $ 40.00/ea.
LA Rattler (abrasion resistance) $225.00/test
Liquid Limit $100.00/ea.
Masonry Block Compressive Strength $ 65.00/ea.
Masonry Block Linear Shrinkage $ 85.00/ea.
Masonry Block Prism Compressive Strength $125.00/ea.
Masonry Core Shear Test $ 50.00/core
Moisture Content $ 35.00/ea.
Moisture-Density Test $ 40.00/ea.
Particle Size Analysis (ASTM 422) $150.00/ea.
Percent Crushed Particles $200.00/ea.
Percent Organics $ 50.00/ea.
Plastic Limit $100.00/ea.
Plasticity Index $200.00/ea.
R-Value $350.00/ea.
Rice Specific Gravity of Asphalt (ASTM D2041) $100.00/ea.
Sand Equivalent $100.00/ea.
Sawing Rocks and Concrete Cores $ 30.00/unit
Sieve Analysis--Coarse $ 75.00/ea.
Sieve Analysis--Fine $ 75.00/ea
Sieve Analysis--Passing 200 $ 50.00/ea.
Specific Gravity, Rock $ 75.00/ea.
Stabilometer of Premixed AC $ 75.00/ea.
Sulfate Soundness $ 80.00/cycle
Swell Test $100.00/point
Triaxial Compression
Unconsolidated Undrained (TXUU) (ASTM D2850) $115.00/point Consolidated Undrained (TXCU) (ASTM D4767) $385.00/point Consolidated Drained (TXCD) (ACOE) $500.00/point
Consolidated Undrained (TXCU–3 stage) (ASTM D4767) $810.00/test Consolidated Drained (TXCD–3 stage) (ACOE) $860.00/test USDA Bulk Density Test $ 30.00/ea.
USDA Textural Suitability Test $ 75.00/ea.
Unconfined Compression $ 75.00/ea.
Unit Weight of Lightweight Concrete $ 50.00/unit
Notes:
All samples of soil or rock from physical testing are discarded 30 days after submission of final report unless prior arrangements are made. Samples of soil or rock submitted for testing for hazardous substances will be returned to the Client, who is responsible for proper disposal.
This fee schedule is subject to review and adjustment, as required.
Certain services may require prevailing wages or overtime at premium pay to SHN employees. In such circumstances, fees will be adjusted to reflect increased labor costs.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: MAYOR GREENOUGH AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ERIC WIER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JON OLSON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
• Hear staff report
• Technical questions from the Council
• Receive public comment
• Further Council discussion
• Declare the attached list of equipment surplus and authorize staff to auction the equipment
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As City equipment cannot be utilized or is unsuitable for City use, that equipment should be declared surplus and sold (if of value) or disposed of. The City Municipal Code section
14.32.010 gives that authority to the City Manager:
14.32.010 Authority to sell surplus supplies and equipment.
The city manager or designee is authorized to dispose of supplies or equipment which cannot be used for any department or which have become unsuitable for city use, or to exchange the same for, or trade the same on, new supplies or equipment, all in accordance with city-adopted policies. (Ord. 808 § 2, 2019) The City’s Capital Asset Policy clarifies that surplus assets may be disposed of in a manner approved by the City Manager, so long as each asset is valued under $5,000. In the case of capital assets such as vehicles which may generate public interest, staff feels it is best practice to bring the action before the Council for approval.
The attached list of vehicles and equipment has been deemed by the City’s Sr. Mechanic to be unusable by the City and has requested it to be deemed surplus and sold. Staff is proposing to use an on-line equipment auction site named “GovDeals” to assist in the selling of the equipment. The auction process is as follows:
• Auction will run online for the duration selected (usually 7 – 10 days) Surplus Vehicles
September 6, 2022
2 • After the auction closes, the buyers have 5 business days for payment and 10 business days to collect their items
• GovDeals will collect the money from the buyer that includes purchase price, sales tax & buyer’s premium of 10% – GovDeals will only collect the 10% premium, the City will receive 100% of purchase price
• After the asset is collected and marked as “picked up” by the City, the payment check will be processed from GovDeals and mailed the following week.
The equipment will be advertised on the GovDeals Web Site as well as on the City’s social media.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The minimum requested bid price for each item is listed on the attached list of proposed surplus equipment. This is the minimum amount the City would receive, however since this is an auction, the amount actually received could be higher. If no bids that meet that minimum requested sale price, the City could adjust the minimum and request GovDeals to conduct another auction.
If all vehicles or equipment are sold the City anticipates receiving between $9,100 (minimum bid) and $25,200 in revenue to the Equipment Fund.
STRATEGIC PLAN ASSESSMENT
GOAL 1: SUPPORT QUALITY SERVICES, COMMUNITY SAFETY, AND HEALTH TO
ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND EXPERIENCE OF OUR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS D. Provide and maintain an efficient, adequate infrastructure to provide for both current and future community needs
GOAL 3: OBTAIN THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed List of Surplus Vehicles and Equipment (August 2022)
CITY OF CRESCENT CITY
SURPLUS PROPERTY SALE
The following items have been declared surplus property of the City and are up for bid.
Year Make Model Minimum Bid $
2003 Ford E150 Econoline Cargo Van $200
1996 FORD F700 5 yd. Dump truck $1000
1992 FORD F350 flatbed dump truck $200
2004 Chevy Colorado $100
2008 Chevy Tahoe $500
1992 Camel Sewer Jetter Trailer $500
2003 Ford Crown Victoria $500
1992 Ford Ranger Flatbed $200
1998 Wacker 6” trailer mounted water pump $200
2013 Custom 6X8 utility trailer $200
2005 Husqvarna 60” Zero turn mower $500
2000 New Holland 655E Backhoe $5000
All vehicles shall be sold “as is,” “where is,” unlicensed and unregistered. The City of Crescent City does not warrant the property or its fitness for any use or purpose. Vehicles can be seen by contacting Jason Borges at (707) 464-9565 to make an appointment to view any specific item listed or to ask questions regarding the bid items. The items listed will be sold through a thirdparty website: www.govdeals.com Items will be offered to the highest bidder and winning bidders will be notified. The City of Crescent City retains the right to refuse any or all bids.
Dated 9/2022
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: MAYOR GREENOUGH AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ERIC WIER, CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: CRESCENT CITY WELCOME SIGNS
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
• Hear staff report
• Technical questions from the Council
• Receive public comment
• Further Council discussion
• Take action as necessary and appropriate
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
City staff have proposed repainting the Crescent City welcome signs to brighten the colors and contrast of the wording as well as giving them much needed touch-ups. Please see the attached photoshopped picture of what the proposed updated colors would look like.
This update would include both the north “Welcome City” Sign at located at 101 and Northcrest and the South sign located at the “S” Curve. Currently the City has some very talented internal staff that can be performed this work.
This work can be completed over the next 30 days and will address the needed sign maintenance. In the grander scope of these areas and welcome signage project, staff is also working with the Beachfront Park consultants (Greenworks) to give a proposal on expanding their scope of work to include the S Curve and Welcome signs. This proposal would include evaluating options for a more robust signs that have a sense of context with the area and are consistent with the theme of the Park and Front Street experience.
Once the proposal has been developed, staff will be bringing this back to Council for consideration.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
The work proposed would require staff time and limited prep and painting supplies. There is sufficient budget included in the approved FY23 budget to complete this project.
Crescent City Welcome Sign Update
September 6, 2022
2 STRATEGIC PLAN ASSESSMENT
This action supports Strategic Plan goals.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed color scheme
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: MAYOR GREENOUGH AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ERIC WIER, CITY MANAGER
BY: MARTHA D. RICE, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: PRESTON ISLAND NIGHT CLOSURE ORDINANCE
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
• Hear staff report
• Technical questions from the Council
• Receive public comment
• Further Council discussion
• Waive full reading, read by title only, and introduce Ordinance No. 833, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY
AMENDING THE CRESCENT CITY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
CHAPTER 12.48, PRESTON ISLAND, TO TITLE 12, STREETS,
SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES
BACKGROUND
It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide law enforcement with another tool to manage persons within the city that are conducting themselves in a manner that is detrimental to others. Specifically, there has been a rise in in the incidence of garbage and debris, unsafe fires, and criminal activity in the Preston Island area. This is a tricky jurisdictional area. The City and County are working to align regulations in this specific location so that law enforcement can more effectively address issues as they arise.
ITEM ANALYSIS
This ordinance would close Preston Island to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., specifically including all areas of the public beach north of the Brother Jonathan parking area. I have attached a map for illustrative purposes. It is the hope that this closure will prevent some of the unwelcome behavior that has been occurring in the area.
If introduced at this meeting, then the ordinance will be brought back to the first meeting in October for final adoption. The ordinance will take effect 30 days after its adoption.
PRESTON ISLAND NIGHT CLOSURE ORD.
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
2 FISCAL ANALYSIS
The costs associated with introducing the ordinance include staff time and costs to publish the ordinance summaries.
STRATEGIC PLAN ASSESSMENT
This action supports the following Strategic Plan goals:
GOAL 1: Support quality services, community safety, and health to enhance the quality of life and experience of our residents and visitors.
C. Empower and utilize Police, Fire, and Public Works departments to make Crescent City one of the safest cities in the United States
ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Ordinance No. 833
• Map of Preston Island area
and fined as provided in Chapter 1.16.
A. Any individual who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction
12.48.030 – Violations
hours of closure.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to remain or enter upon Preston Island during its marked with signs indicating the hours of closure.
public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. The public access road shall be lying north of the Brother Jonathan parking area (“Preston Island”) are closed to the A. The Preston Island access road, parking area, rocky outcropping and public beach
12.48.020 – Hours of closure
Crescent City. This chapter applies to the land within the City’s jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of Preston Island is divided between the County of Del Norte and City of
12.48.010 – Applicability
CHAPTER 12.48 – PRESTON ISLAND
Public Places, as follows:
amended by adding Chapter 12.48, Preston Island, to Title 12, Streets, Sidewalks, and SECTION 2. CODE AMENDMENT. The Crescent City Municipal Code is hereby and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The City Council finds the above recitals to be true and correct NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Crescent City ordains as follows:
stretches of public beach to access during that time.
WHEREAS, closing Preston Island for the nighttime hours still gives the public large debris, unsafe fires, and criminal activity; and
the nighttime hours which has been linked to an increase in the presence of garbage and WHEREAS, there has been an increased presence of persons at Preston Island during Norte County, Crescent City, and private landowners; and WHEREAS, Preston Island is a checkerboard of jurisdiction and ownership between Del welfare; and
(“police power”) to make laws and regulations to protect the public health, safety and WHEREAS, the City of Crescent City is a general law city with the constitutional authority PRESTON ISLAND, TO TITLE 12, STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND PUBLIC PLACES AMENDING THE CRESCENT CITY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 12.48,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY ORDINANCE NO. 833
B. Any individual willfully violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined as provided in Chapter 1.16.
C. Any individual who violates the provisions of this chapter may be administratively cited pursuant to Chapter 1.24.
D. The remedies provided for in this chapter are cumulative to each other and any other remedy the City may have at law or in equity.
***END TEXT AMENDMENT***
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or inapplicable to any situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or the applicability of this Ordinance to other situations.
SECTION 4. CEQA FINDINGS. This Ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) as this ordinance does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE & PUBLICATION. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after the date of its adoption. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Del Norte County once within 15 days of its adoption in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 36933.
INTRODUCED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Crescent City held on ____________________, 2022.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Crescent City at a regular meeting of the City Council held this ___ day of ________ 2022 by the following polled vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Jason Greenough, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robin Altman, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Martha D. Rice, City Attorney
Crescent City Ordinance No. 833
PRESTON ISLAND
Parcel Viewer County of Del Norte
+
0 Bureau of Land Management, Esri Canada, Esri,HERE,Germin,USGS,EPA, USDA ^ 'V*
'
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: MAYOR GREENOUGH AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ERIC WIER, CITY MANAGER
BY: ERIC WIER, CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
SUBJECT: AB 257 DISCUSSION
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
• Hear staff report
• Technical questions from the Council
• Receive public comment
• Further Council discussion
• Consider authorizing the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem to write a letter urging the Governor to veto AB 257
BACKGROUND
During agenda review Mayor Greenough requested that the Council consider opposing AB 257. After some quick research, it was discovered that AB 257 passed both the Senate and the Assembly and was sent to the Governor on Monday, August 29. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem requested that staff add an agenda item so that the Council may consider if they wish to send a letter to the Governor urging a veto of AB 257, who has yet to publicly take a stance on the legislation.
The bill (AB 257) and four articles discussing the pros and cons of the legislation are attached to this staff report for the Council’s consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
• AB 257: Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act • CalMatters article: California may link fast food chains to wage violations • The New York Times article: California Senate Passes Bill to Regulate Fast-Food Industry
• Los Angeles Times article: California Legislature passes bill to protect fast-food workers
9/1/22, 8:34 AM Bill Text - AB-257 Food facilities and employment. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257 1/5 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 257
SHARE THIS: Date Published: 08/30/2022 09:00 PM
AB-257 Food facilities and employment. (2021-2022)
CORRECTED AUGUST 31, 2022
ENROLLED AUGUST 30, 2022
PASSED IN SENATE AUGUST 29, 2022
PASSED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 29, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 25, 2022
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 16, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 27, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 20, 2022
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 2021
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 25, 2021
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2021–2022 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Assembly Members Holden, Carrillo, Low, and Luz Rivas (Coauthors: Assembly Members Mia Bonta, Gipson, Kalra, McCarty, Muratsuchi, and Santiago) (Coauthors: Senators Stern and Wiener)
January 15, 2021
An act to amend Section 96 of, and to add Part 4.5.5 (commencing with Section 1470) to Division 2 of, the Labor Code, relating to food facilities and employment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 257, Holden. Food facilities and employment.
Existing law prescribes various protections for employees and generally charges the Labor Commissioner with the enforcement of labor laws. Existing law establishes the powers and responsibilities of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement, which are within the Department of Industrial Relations.
This bill would enact the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act or FAST Recovery Act. The bill would establish, until January 1, 2029, the Fast Food Council (council) within the Department of Industrial Relations, to be composed of 10 members to be appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Rules Committee, and would prescribe its powers. The purpose of the council would be to establish sectorwide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions related to the health, safety, and welfare of, and supplying the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant workers, as well as effecting interagency coordination and prompt agency responses in this regard. The bill would define the characteristics of a fast food restaurant, including that the establishment be part of a set of fast food restaurants consisting of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services.
This bill would require the council to promulgate minimum fast food restaurant employment standards, including standards on wages, working conditions, and training, and to issue, amend, and repeal any other rules and regulations, as necessary to carry out its duties, subject to a petition signed by 10,000 fast food restaurant employees approving the creation of the council, as specified. Under the bill, if a conflict exists between council’s standards, rules, or regulations and those issued by another state agency, the standards, rules, or regulations issued by the council would apply to fast food restaurant workers and fast food restaurant franchisees and franchisors, and the conflicting rules or regulations of the other state agency would not have force or effect with respect to these parties. The bill would except from this application proposed standards within the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board and would prescribe a process for the council to petition the board to adopt, amend, or repeal a standard.
This bill would require the council to submit a report to the Legislature, as specified, for a standard, or repeal or amendment of a standard, to become effective, and would specify that a standard, repeal, or amendment shall not take effect before October 15 of the same year. The bill would also require the council to provide information as requested by the appropriate committees of the Legislature on labor to facilitate a review of the council’s performance and standards, as specified.
This bill would require the council to conduct a full review of the adequacy of minimum fast food restaurant health, safety, and employment standards at least once every 3 years. The bill would require the council, following that review, to issue, amend, or repeal, or make recommendations to issue, amend, or repeal, any fast food employment, health or safety standard applicable to fast food restaurants, as appropriate. The bill would require the council to hold meetings or hearings no less than every 6 months that would be open to the public, as specified, and would authorize the council to coordinate with and authorize local agencies to hold such meetings. The bill would authorize a county, or a city with a population greater than 200,000, to establish a Local Fast Food Council, and would prescribe its powers and requirements for its composition. The bill would authorize a Local Fast Food Council to provide recommendations to the council.
This bill would require standards for minimum wages, maximum hours of work, and other working conditions fixed by the council to be the minimum standards for fast food restaurant employees, absent a valid collective bargaining agreement, as specified, and would require that they be enforced by the commissioner, as specified, and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. By expanding the application of crimes associated with those enforcement procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would require the Labor Commissioner and the commissioner’s deputies to take assignments of violations of standards issued by the council upon the filing of a claim in writing by an employee or an employee’s authorized representative.
This bill would prohibit a fast food restaurant operator from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any fast food restaurant employee for specified reasons and would create a cause of action and right to reinstatement for employees in this connection, as well as a presumption of unlawful discrimination and retaliation in certain circumstances.
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
L E G I S L A T I V E I N F O R M A T I O N
9/1/22, 8:34 AM Bill Text - AB-257 Food facilities and employment. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257 2/5 The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act or FAST Recovery Act.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) For years, the fast food sector has been rife with abuse, low pay, few benefits, and minimal job security, with California workers subject to high rates of employment violations, including wage theft, sexual harassment and discrimination, as well as heightened health and safety risks. (b) Fast food workers are the largest and fastest growing group of low-wage workers in the state and lack sector-specific protections. (c) The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the implications for workers and the public when a disempowered workforce faces a crisis in a sector with a poor history of compliance with workplace health and safety regulations. (d) Workers with inadequate means to amplify their voices and their experience, and to address the pervasive problems plaguing the sector, have exacerbated the impact of this crisis and denied workers a path to win safer workplaces for themselves, their families, and fast food consumers. (e) Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous local, state, and federal laws and regulations have been instituted to require operational changes on the part of businesses to protect employees from infection.
(f) Numerous complaints filed by fast food workers with state and local health departments illustrate that many fast food operators routinely have flouted protections, including, but not limited to, failing to provide adequate protection against workplace violence, requiring workers to work without access to personal protective equipment, denying workers sick pay, failing to inform workers of exposure to COVID-19, actively hiding COVID-19 cases, and demanding that workers come to work when they are sick. (g) As a result, fast food workers, and the public they serve, face serious and unacceptable risks to their health and safety. (h) In addition, fast food companies have profited during the pandemic, while California’s one-half million fast food workers have been hard hit, both medically and financially. Despite corporate profits, fast food workers are poorly positioned to participate in a fast recovery and a more equitable economy, one that reflects improved job quality, wages, and working conditions, responsible use of technology, and modernized worker protections. (i) Therefore, cooperation between state agencies with responsibility for improving and enforcing health and safety and other worker protection laws, with regular input from business and worker representatives, along with improved incentives to achieve compliance, is critical to protecting fast food workers, customers, and the public. (j) Furthermore, because existing enforcement and regulatory mechanisms have proved inadequate in ensuring fast food restaurant worker health, safety, and welfare, the Legislature concludes that sectorwide minimum health, safety, and employment standards, including standards concerning wages and other working conditions, identified by an expert body with subject matter expertise and experience in the fast food sector and which can represent the demographic diversity of the state’s fast food restaurant operators and employees, are necessary to protect, maintain, and ensure the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant employees.
(k) Nothing in this act is intended to usurp or encroach on the Legislature’s ability to establish standards governing the health, safety, welfare, and employment of workers, including fast food restaurant workers. It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that legislators have sufficient time to review and, as appropriate, take legislative action with respect to fast food standards established by the expert body, which will be promulgated pursuant to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, before those standards take effect.
SEC. 3. Section 96 of the Labor Code is amended to read:
96. The Labor Commissioner and the deputies and representatives authorized by the commissioner in writing shall, upon the filing of a claim therefor by an employee, or an employee representative authorized in writing by an employee, with the Labor Commissioner, take assignments of:
(a) Wage claims and incidental expense accounts and advances. (b) Mechanics’ and other liens of employees.
(c) Claims based on “stop orders” for wages and on bonds for labor. (d) Claims for damages for misrepresentations of conditions of employment. (e) Claims for unreturned bond money of employees.
(f) Claims for penalties for nonpayment of wages.
(g) Claims for the return of workers’ tools in the illegal possession of another person. (h) Claims for vacation pay, severance pay, or other compensation supplemental to a wage agreement. (i) Awards for workers’ compensation benefits in which the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has found that the employer has failed to secure payment of compensation and where the award remains unpaid more than 10 days after having become final. (j) Claims for loss of wages as the result of discharge from employment for the garnishment of wages. (k) Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.
(l) Claims for violations of standards issued by the Fast Food Council pursuant to Part 4.5.5 (commencing with Section 1470) of Division 2.
SEC. 4. Part 4.5.5 (commencing with Section 1470) is added to Division 2 of the Labor Code, to read:
PART 4.5.5. Fast Food Workers
1470. For purposes of this part:
(a) “Fast food chain” means a set of restaurants consisting of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products, and services. (b) “Council” means the Fast Food Council.
(c) “Fast food restaurant” means any establishment in the state that is part of a fast food chain and that, in its regular business operations, primarily provides food or beverages in the following manner:
(1) For immediate consumption either on or off the premises. (2) To customers who order or select items and pay before eating. 9/1/22, 8:34 AM Bill Text - AB-257 Food facilities and employment. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257 3/5 (3) With items prepared in advance, including items that may be prepared in bulk and kept hot, or with items prepared or heated quickly. (4) With limited or no table service. Table service does not include orders placed by a customer on an electronic device. (d) “Fast food restaurant franchisee” means a person to whom a fast food restaurant franchise is granted. (e) “Fast food restaurant franchisor” means a person who grants or has granted a fast food restaurant franchise. (f) “Fast food restaurant operator” means a person who operates a fast food restaurant. (g) “Franchise,” “franchisee,” and “franchisor” have the definitions set forth in Article 1 (commencing with Section 20000) of Chapter 5.5 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
(h) “Working conditions” include, but are not limited to, wages, conditions affecting fast food restaurant employees’ health and safety, security in the workplace, the right to take time off work for protected purposes, and the right to be free from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. (i) An establishment that on September 1, 2022, operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread as defined under Part 136 of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations shall not be considered a fast food restaurant, so long as it continues to operate such a bakery. This exemption applies only where the establishment produces for sale bread as a stand-alone menu item, and does not apply if the bread is available for sale solely as part of another menu item. (j) When a restaurant is located and operates within a “grocery establishment,” as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 2502, and the grocery establishment employer employs the individuals working in the restaurant, the restaurant shall not be considered a fast food restaurant. 1471. (a) (1) The Fast Food Council is hereby established within the Department of Industrial Relations to consist of the following 10 members:
(A) One representative from the Department of Industrial Relations. (B) Two representatives of fast food restaurant franchisors. (C) Two representatives of fast food restaurant franchisees. (D) Two representatives of fast food restaurant employees. (E) Two representatives of advocates for fast food restaurant employees. (F) One representative from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. (2) The Governor shall appoint the representatives of the state agencies, fast food restaurant employees, fast food restaurant franchisees, and fast food restaurant franchisors. The Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Rules Committee shall each appoint one representative of an advocate for fast food restaurant employees. (3) The appointments shall be at the will of each appointing power and each member of the council shall serve for a term of four years except that all terms shall end on the date this section becomes inoperative. All terms that end prior to the date that this section becomes inoperative shall end on January 1. Vacancies occurring prior to the expiration of the term shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term. A council member shall not serve more than two consecutive terms. (4) The Governor shall designate the chairperson of the council from the membership for the council. The chairperson shall be responsible for convening the council. The person so designated shall hold the office of chairperson at the pleasure of the Governor. The chairperson shall designate a member of the council to act as chairperson in their absence.
(5) Each member of the council shall receive one hundred dollars ($100) for each day of their actual attendance at meetings of the council and other official business of the council, in addition to their actual necessary traveling expenses incurred in the performance of their duty as a member. (6) The council may employ necessary assistants, officers, experts, and other employees as it deems necessary, subject to appropriation. All personnel of the council shall be under the supervision of the chairperson or an executive officer to whom the chairperson delegates such responsibility. All such personnel shall be appointed pursuant to the State Civil Service Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 18000) of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code), except for the one exempt deputy or employee allowed by subdivision (e) of Section 4 of Article VII of the California Constitution. (7) All meetings of the council shall be subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).
(b) The council’s purposes are to establish sectorwide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions adequate to ensure and maintain the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant workers and to ensure and effect interagency coordination and prompt agency responses regarding issues affecting the health, safety, and employment of fast food restaurant workers. (c) (1) The council shall provide direction to, and coordinate with, the Governor, executive agencies, and local agencies regarding the health, safety, and employment of fast food restaurant workers.
(2) The council shall not promulgate, petition for, issue, amend, or repeal, any standards, rules, or regulations pursuant to subdivision (d) or (e) until after the Director of Industrial Relations receives a petition approving the creation of the council signed by at least 10,000 California fast food restaurant employees. (A) Only a person who is employed by a fast food restaurant in California at the time of signing the petition is entitled to sign it. Each signer shall provide the following on the petition:
(i) First and last name.
(ii) Name of the fast food restaurant where the signer is employed at the time of signature. (iii) The California city where the fast food restaurant is located. (iv) Signature, which may be an electronic signature.
(v) Date of signature.
(B) If a signer provides the information specified in subparagraph (A), it shall be presumed that the signature is genuine and the person signing is a fast food restaurant employee.
(C) Within 45 days of receipt of the petition, the Director of Industrial Relations shall verify whether the petition meets the requirements of this subdivision. Verification shall be limited to determining whether the petition contains at least 10,000 signatures and whether the signatures contain the required information. The director may use a random sampling technique to verify whether the signatures contain the required information. (D) If the director verifies that a petition meets the requirements of this subdivision, the council shall convene its first meeting within 90 days of the date of verification. (d) (1) (A) The council shall promulgate minimum fast food restaurant employment standards, including, as appropriate, standards on wages, working conditions, and training, as are reasonably necessary or appropriate to protect and ensure the welfare, including the physical well-being and security, of fast food restaurant workers or to otherwise meet the purposes of this section, subject to the limitations of subdivision (e). The council may also issue, amend, or repeal any other rules and regulations as necessary to carry out its duties under this section or meet the purposes of this section, subject to the limitations of subdivision (e). To the extent there is a conflict between standards, rules, or regulations issued by the council and the rules or regulations issued by another state agency, the standards, rules, or regulations issued by the council shall apply to fast food restaurant workers and fast food restaurant franchisees and franchisors, and the conflicting rules or regulations of the other state agency shall not have force or effect with respect to fast food restaurant workers, franchisees, or franchisors. Decisions by the council regarding standards, rules, and regulations shall be made by an affirmative 9/1/22, 8:34 AM Bill Text - AB-257 Food facilities and employment. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257 4/5 vote of at least six of the council members. All standards, rules, and regulations by the council shall be issued, amended, or repealed, as applicable, in the manner prescribed in Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (B) The council shall submit, to the appropriate committees on labor of each house of the Legislature and pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code, a report that contains a copy of that standard, repeal, or amendment and a statement of the council’s reasons for adopting that standard, repeal, or amendment by January 15. The standard, repeal, or amendment shall not take effect before October 15 of that same year. Nothing herein restrains the Legislature from enacting legislation that prevents a standard, repeal, or amendment from taking effect.
(C) This paragraph shall not apply to emergency standards adopted pursuant to Sections 11346.1 and 11349.6 of the Government Code. (2) (A) Any minimum wage established by the council shall, from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, inclusive, shall not be greater than twenty-two dollars ($22) per hour.
(B) On January 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the highest hourly minimum wage that may be established by the council shall increase by no more than the lesser of one of the following, rounded to the nearest ten cents ($0.10):
(i) 3.5 percent.
(ii) The rate of change in the averages of the most recent July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period over the preceding July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted United States Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (U.S. CPI-W). (3) Standards promulgated by the council shall be subject to any suspension of increases in the statewide minimum wage made pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 1182.12.
(4) Standards promulgated by the council shall not alter or amend the requirements in the California Retail Food Code (Part 7 (commencing with Section 113700) of Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code).
(5) The council shall provide information as requested by the appropriate committees of the Legislature on labor to facilitate a review of the council’s performance and standards under this section, which review may be conducted in a joint hearing held every three years or as otherwise designated by the appropriate committees of the Legislature on labor.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to give the council the authority to create or amend statutes. (7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the council to promulgate regulations creating new paid time off benefits, such as paid sick leave or paid vacation. For purposes of this paragraph, paid time off benefits do not include paid rest periods. (8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the council to promulgate regulations regarding predictable scheduling. Predictable scheduling does not include reporting time pay. The council may create a report containing a recommendation to the Legislature to enact laws regarding predictable scheduling. (e) To the extent that any minimum standards that the council finds are reasonably necessary to protect fast food restaurant employee health and safety fall within the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, the council is not authorized to promulgate the standards pursuant to Section 142.3, but rather shall petition the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any occupational safety and health standard. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board shall consider and respond to the petition no later than six months following receipt of the petition in accordance with Section 142.2, or no later than three months, if the petition relates to an emergency as defined in Section 11342.545 of the Government Code. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board shall not adopt a standard recommended by the council if it reduces occupational safety and health protections for employees. (f) The council shall conduct a full review of the adequacy of the minimum fast food restaurant health, safety, and employment standards at least once every three years. Upon that review, the council shall issue, amend, or repeal, or make recommendations to issue, amend, or repeal, any fast food employment, health or safety standard applicable to fast food restaurants, or a portion of any such standard, as appropriate to meet the purposes of this section. Any change to existing regulations proposed by the council shall not be less protective of or less beneficial to health, safety, or fast food restaurant worker employment terms, conditions, or privileges, including wages, than the immediately preceding standard.
(g) The council shall hold meetings or hearings no less than every six months that are open to the public, at which the public, including fast food restaurant employees, shall have the opportunity to be heard on issues of fast food restaurant health, safety, and employment conditions. The council shall provide advance public notice of these meetings or hearings that is reasonably calculated to advise fast food restaurant workers, franchisors, franchisees, community members, and other stakeholders of the opportunity to participate in the meetings or hearings. The location of the meetings or hearings shall rotate among major metropolitan areas throughout the state to provide fast food restaurant workers, franchisors, franchisees, community members, and other stakeholders throughout the state a reasonable opportunity to participate in a meeting or hearing at least once per each three-year review.
(h) The council may coordinate with local agencies and authorize them to hold meetings or hearings that are open to the public, at which the public, including fast food restaurant employees, shall have the opportunity to be heard on issues of fast food restaurant health, safety, and employment conditions. After these meetings or hearings, the local agency shall prepare a report for the council that summarizes the information received at the public hearings or meetings and includes any recommendations for action by the council.
(i) A county, or a city with a population of greater than 200,000, may establish a Local Fast Food Council, which shall be composed of at least one representative who is either a fast food restaurant franchisor or a fast food restaurant franchisee and at least one representative who is a fast food restaurant employee, and a majority of representatives from local employment, health, and safety agencies. A Local Fast Food Council established pursuant to this subdivision shall periodically hold meetings that are open to the public, at which the public, including fast food restaurant employees, shall have the opportunity to be heard on issues of local fast food restaurant health, safety, and employment conditions. A Local Fast Food Council may provide written recommendations to the council regarding minimum state health, safety, and employment standards, including training, that the Local Fast Food Council finds are reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of fast food restaurant workers. A Local Fast Food Council shall operate independently from the council.
(j) All meetings of a Local Fast Food Council shall be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). (k) (1) The minimum wages, maximum hours of work, and other working conditions fixed by the council in standards promulgated pursuant to subdivision (d) shall be the minimum wage, maximum hours of work, and the standard conditions of labor for fast food restaurant employees or a relevant subgroup of fast food restaurant employees for purposes of state law. Nothing in this section shall restrict local jurisdictions’ exercise of police powers to establish more protective local standards. The employment of a fast food restaurant employee for lower wages or for longer hours than those fixed by the minimum standards promulgated by the council, or under any other working conditions prohibited by the minimum standards promulgated by the council, is unlawful. Compliance with the minimum fast food restaurant employment standards promulgated by the council shall be enforced by the commissioner and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement pursuant to the procedures and provisions set forth in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 79) of Division 1, Division 2 (commencing with Section 200), Division 3 (commending with Section 2700), and Division 5 (commencing with Section 6400), and according to any additional enforcement procedures and provisions that are set forth in standards, orders, or regulations promulgated by the council. (2) Other than occupational safety and health violations, which shall be enforced by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health under Division 5 (commencing with Section 6400), and other than discrimination, harassment, and related retaliation, which shall be enforced by the Civil Rights Department under Part 2.8 (commencing with 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, the Labor Commissioner shall enforce this part, including investigating an alleged violation, and ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate the violation or to maintain the status quo pending the completion of a full investigation or hearing, through the procedures set forth in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 79) of Division 1 and Section 1197.1, including by issuance of a citation against an employer, fast food restaurant operator, fast food franchisee, fast food franchisor, or any other liable person under this part, and by filing a civil action. If a citation is issued, the procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations and civil penalties issued by the Labor Commissioner shall be the same as those set out in Section 98.74 or 1197.1, as appropriate. In any successful civil action to enforce this section by the Labor Commissioner or an employee, the court may grant injunctive relief in order to obtain compliance with this part, and shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
9/1/22, 8:34 AM Bill Text - AB-257 Food facilities and employment. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB257 5/5 (3) A standard promulgated by the council pursuant to subdivision (d) shall not supersede a standard covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and a regular hourly rate of pay not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage for those employees, if the agreement provides equivalent or greater protection than the standards established by the council and if state law on the same issue authorizes an exception for employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow a collective bargaining agreement to waive any occupational health and safety protections. (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require local health departments to enforce standards issued by the council. (l) In addition to the standards, rules, and regulations promulgated by the council pursuant to subdivision (d), the council is also authorized to issue any other rules, regulations, and guidance necessary for the enforcement of this part. (m) On January 1, 2029, subdivisions (a) to (j), inclusive, shall become inoperative, and the council shall cease operations. 1472. (a) A fast food restaurant operator shall not discharge or in any manner discriminate or retaliate against any employee for any of the following reasons:
(1) The employee made a complaint or disclosed information or the fast food restaurant operator believes the employee disclosed, or may disclose, information to the franchisor, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority at the fast food restaurant to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, to the media, to the Legislature, or to a watchdog or community based organization, or a governmental agency regarding employee or public health or safety.
(2) The employee instituted, caused to be instituted, testified in, or otherwise participated in a proceeding relating to employee or public health or safety, or any council or Local Fast Food Council proceeding.
(3) The employee refused to perform work in a fast food restaurant because the employee had reasonable cause to believe that the practices or premises of that fast food restaurant would violate worker or public health and safety laws, regulations, or any other section in this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety and health standard, or any safety order of the division or standards board, or would pose a substantial risk to the health or safety of the employee, other employees, or the public. (b) Any employee of a fast food restaurant operator discharged or otherwise discriminated or retaliated against in the terms and conditions of employment in violation of subdivision (a) shall have a right of action for, and shall be entitled to, reinstatement, and treble the lost wages and work benefits caused by the discrimination or retaliation, and the employee’s reasonably incurred attorney’s fees and costs. (c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption of unlawful discrimination or retaliation for purposes of this section if a fast food restaurant operator discharges or takes any other adverse action against one of its employees within 90 days following the date when the operator had knowledge of that employee’s action or actions described in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a).
1473. On January 1, 2029, and annually thereafter, if the council is no longer operative, the minimum wage for fast food restaurant employees in effect on the immediately preceding December 31 shall be increased by the lesser of one of the following rounded to the nearest ten cents ($0.10):
(a) 3.5 percent.
(b) The rate of change in the averages of the most recent July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period over the preceding July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted United States Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (U.S. CPI-W).
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
9/1/22, 8:29 AM California may link fast food chains to wage violations- CalMatters https://calmatters.org/california-divide/ca-divide-workplace/2022/08/california-fast-food-bill/ 1/4 Fast food workers from across California rallied at the state Capitol in Sacramento, urging lawmakers to pass AB 257. Aug. 16, 2022, Photo by Rahul Lal, CalMatters
CALIFORNIA DIVIDE: WORKPLACE
California’s fast food bill could link chains to
wage theft and other workplace violations
BY JEANNE KUANG
AUGUST 17, 2022
IN SUMMARY
Proponents say AB 257 could curb wage theft, but restaurateurs say it could raise costs and prices and fundamentally change relationships with fast food chains.
Lea este artículo en español.
California lawmakers this month are considering a fast food bill that would significantly shift the relationship between restaurant workers and the corporate chains whose products they sell.
If Assembly Bill 257 passes, California would be the first state to assign labor liability to fast food corporations and not just their individual franchise owners.
The bill’s provisions would let workers and the state name fast food chains as a responsible party when workers claim minimum wage violations or unpaid overtime at a franchise location.
The bill’s language also would allow a franchisee to sue a restaurant chain if their franchise contracts contain strict terms that leave them no choice but to violate labor law.
It’s part of a larger bill pushed by unions to more strictly regulate fast food businesses. AB 257 also includes a measure to create a state-run, fast food sector council to set wage and labor standards across the industry.
Last week the bill survived the “suspense file” process, where controversial bills often are quietly killed. After clearing the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill awaits a vote on the floor.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has not stated a position on the bill, but his Department of Finance opposes it, saying it would create “ongoing costs” and worsen delays in the state’s labor enforcement system.
If it becomes law, proponents said it could deter wage theft and other abuses in the low-wage industry.
“How you hold the companies at the top of the food chain, who are really setting the terms and conditions of employment, responsible for the lower levels — California has &
9/1/22, 8:29 AM California may link fast food chains to wage violations- CalMatters https://calmatters.org/california-divide/ca-divide-workplace/2022/08/california-fast-food-bill/ 2/4 been way ahead on that,” said Janice Fine, professor of labor studies and employment relations at Rutgers University. “What’s happened in California is a real effort to try to figure out the fissured economy.”
California’s fast food bill
The fast food bill is one of the most contentious measures the Legislature is considering during its final weeks in session.
The California Chamber of Commerce and the state restaurant association have lobbied hard against it, arguing the bill would upend the franchise business model and ultimately raise costs for franchise owners and consumers. On Wednesday, a group of franchisees flooded the Capitol to oppose the bill.
The Service Employees International Union and its Fight for $15 campaign led a series of strikes this summer to rally for the bill’s passage, including an overnight rally at the Capitol this week.
Currently most workers who allege wage theft, say, at a McDonald’s, Burger King, or a Jack in the Box can only name the owner of their specific franchise location as responsible for paying them back — even as they work under the banner of a multibillion-dollar fast food corporation.
In other industries, California already has done some of what AB 257 proposes to do for fast food. In some cases, the state has expanded responsibility for employment conditions beyond the subcontractor or supplier level to the larger companies they do business with, even though they don’t directly employ the workers.
For instance, in 2014 the Legislature made businesses that use contract workers liable for wage theft committed by those workers’ agencies. Lawmakers later did the same for contractors in the janitorial, gardening, construction and nursing home industries.
Last year the Legislature passed a measure putting major fashion brands on the hook for wage theft by garment manufacturers in their supply chains.
Wage theft in fast food
Fast food is the latest industry attracting this type of regulation, and it is one of the largest and most visible.
Restaurants such as fast-food joints, take-out businesses and cafes employed more than 700,000 workers across the state, according to June federal data. Proponents of the bill estimate 80% of the workers are Black, Latino or Asian and two-thirds are women.
SEIU and Fight for $15 say the industry is rife with labor violations. The union released a survey of 400 workers this year in which 85% said they were victims of wage theft.
Business groups said the bill targets fast food unnecessarily. The Employment Policies Institute, a national think tank with restaurant ties, published a report this month showing the percentage of wage claims filed against this segment of business is lower than its share of the California workforce.
“You’d be holding an entity responsible or assigning
liability for things they don’t have control over.”
JEFF HANSCOM OF THE INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION 9/1/22, 8:29 AM California may link fast food chains to wage violations- CalMatters https://calmatters.org/california-divide/ca-divide-workplace/2022/08/california-fast-food-bill/ 3/4 AB 257 supporters set up a camp to raise awareness of the legislation at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Aug. 16, 2022. Photo by Rahul Lal, CalMatters
If approved, the proposed legislation could mark a turning point in American labor law.
Typically under the franchise model, fast food corporations strike agreements with franchisees that dictate a variety of standards for selling food under their brand — but leave wages, hours and labor conditions up to the franchisee.
The model has provided inroads to business ownership for many minority entrepreneurs, supporters point out.
But critics say companies like McDonald’s and Domino’s have been allowed to profit while distancing themselves from any responsibility for how restaurant employees are treated.
Joint employers?
The question of franchisors’ relationship to workers remains unsettled at the federal level. Across three presidential administrations the National Labor Relations Board has gone back and forth on whether to automatically consider franchisors and franchisees “joint employers.” The courts, including the California Supreme Court, have generally rejected that idea under current laws.
“These franchise models have been an avenue and way for companies to avoid responsibility for being employers,” said Emily Andrews, director of education, labor and worker justice at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a national, left-leaning antipoverty organization.
Studies have found franchisors can exert a significant amount of pressure and control over franchise business owners.
In a paper published last year, law professors at the University of Miami and Cornell University examined 44 franchise contracts from 2016 and found that more than three-quarters gave the chain exclusive power to terminate contracts, putting a franchisee “in a position of economic dependence.”
“Franchisees can respond to intensive franchisor monitoring and tight profit margins by unlawfully chiseling wages as the only cost variable that the franchisor does not directly monitor,” the law professors wrote.
The International Franchise Association disagrees, arguing the business model is defined by franchise owners’ independence in labor decisions. The fast food bill, they said, would reduce those owners to middle managers, and larger companies would pull back opportunities in California if they’re required to monitor labor law compliance. “You’d be holding an entity responsible or assigning liability for things they don’t have control over,” said Jeff Hanscom, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based “Clients want to avoid the liability that contractors would bring in terms of wage theft cases.”
YARDENNA AARON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MAINTENANCE COOPERATION TRUST FUND 9/1/22, 8:29 AM California may link fast food chains to wage violations- CalMatters https://calmatters.org/california-divide/ca-divide-workplace/2022/08/california-fast-food-bill/ 4/4 association which includes franchisors and franchisees. “You’re taking a franchise and turning it into the corporate entity.”
The Cheesecake Factory case
That argument holds some sway with lawmakers in the state Senate.
During a June hearing for the fast food bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee, some Democratic lawmakers questioned if an automatic expansion of liability is necessary. Sen. Bob Wieckowski, a Fremont Democrat, pointed out that under current law a judge can already find a franchisor liable for a labor violation if it’s proven on a case-by-case basis.
Representatives for some franchisors, including McDonald’s, Jack in the Box and Burger King, did not respond to requests for comment on California’s fast food bill.
To worker advocates, extending liability is key to enforcing wage and labor laws.
Yardenna Aaron is executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, a janitorial worker center that pushed for joint liability in that industry in 2015.
Prior to that law’s passage, Aaron said, contractors often closed up shop or declared bankruptcy when faced with allegations of wage theft, only to reopen under another name or business entity later.
The new law has enabled the state’s labor commissioner to issue citations against larger and more prominent companies in cases of alleged wage theft.
In a highly publicized 2018 case, the California Labor Commissioner named the Cheesecake Factory jointly responsible with a janitorial services firm, saying they owed nearly $4 million to 559 janitorial workers who cleaned eight of the chain’s Southern California restaurants. It was one of the state’s largest cases of wage theft.
The state has brought similar cases against electric car manufacturer Tesla for its contractors allegedly underpaying janitors at its San Jose factories, and e-commerce giant Amazon for a contractor allegedly failing to pay overtime to its delivery drivers.
The power of the purse
Labor experts said it’s too soon to tell if joint liability has made it easier for the state to recover unpaid wages. State investigations of wage theft take months. And when the state cites employers, seeking unpaid wages and penalties, employers usually appeal, setting off administrative hearing processes that can take years.
The Cheesecake Factory case is still awaiting a hearing, four years later. Advocates expect a resolution this year, Aaron said. The Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund represented the workers interviewed in that case; its director at the time, Lilia Garcia- Brower, is now the California State Labor Commissioner.
Officials in the labor commissioner’s office in 2020 pointed to the growing complexity of liability laws for the long delays in processing the tens of thousands of individual wage claims workers file each year.
Still, legislative staffers predicted joint liability would “almost certainly” improve labor compliance in fast food by forcing the larger businesses to monitor the behavior of franchisees.
Aaron said that has been evident in the janitorial industry since the 2015 law change. The worker center meets with client companies that hire janitorial contractors to educate them about labor laws.
“We find, generally, clients want to avoid the liability that contractors would bring in terms of wage theft cases,” Aaron said. “The power of the purse is real.” Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story
D BOB WIECKOWSKI
State Senate, District 10 (Fremont)
Expand for more about this legislator
+
9/1/22, 8:24 AM California Senate Passes Bill to Regulate Fast-Food Industry - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/business/economy/california-fast-food-ab-257.html 1/2 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/business/economy/california-fast-food-ab-257.html If signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the measure would create a state council to establish minimum pay and safety conditions on an industrywide basis.
By Noam Scheiber
Aug. 29, 2022
The California State Senate passed a bill on Monday that could transform the way the service sector is regulated by creating a council to set wages and improve working conditions for fast-food workers.
The measure, known as A.B. 257, passed by a vote of 21 to 12. The State Assembly had already approved a version of the measure, and it now requires the approval of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has not indicated whether he will sign it. The bill was vehemently opposed by the fast-food industry.
The bill could herald an important step toward sectoral bargaining, in which workers and employers negotiate compensation and working conditions on an industrywide basis, as opposed to enterprise bargaining, in which workers negotiate with individual companies at individual locations. “In my view, it’s one of the most significant pieces of state employment legislation that’s passed in a long time,” said Kate Andrias, a labor law expert at Columbia University. “It gives workers a formal seat at the table with employers to set standards across the industry that’s not limited to setting minimum wages.” While sectoral bargaining is common in Europe, it is rare in the United States, though certain industries, like auto manufacturing, have arrangements that approximate it. The California bill wouldn’t bring true sectoral bargaining — which involves workers negotiating directly with employers, instead of a government entity setting broad standards — but incorporates crucial elements of the model.
To our readers:
Stories like this are possible because of our deep commitment to original reporting, produced by a global staff of over 1,700 journalists who have all dedicated themselves to helping you understand the world. That work is only possible because of the support of our subscribers. I hope you’ll consider becoming one today. — Marc Lacey, Managing Editor
The bill would set up a 10-member council that would include worker and employer representatives and two state officials, and that would review pay and safety standards across the restaurant industry.
The council could issue health, safety and anti-discrimination regulations and set an industrywide minimum wage. The legislation caps the figure at $22 an hour next year, when the statewide minimum wage will be $15.50. The bill also requires annual cost-of-living adjustments for any new wage floor beginning in 2024.
Restaurant chains with at least 100 locations nationwide would come under the council’s jurisdiction — including companies like Starbucks that own and operate their stores as well as franchisees of large companies like McDonald’s. Hundreds of thousands of workers in the state would be affected.
The council would shut down after six years but could be reconvened by the Legislature.
Mary Kay Henry, the president of the nearly two-million-member Service Employees International Union, which pushed for the legislation, said it was critical because of the challenges that workers have faced when trying to change policies by unionizing store by store. “The stores get closed or the franchise owner sells or the multinational pulls the lease for the real estate,” Ms. Henry said.
Franchise industry officials say it is extremely rare to close a store in response to a union campaign. Starbucks recently closed several corporate-owned stores across the country where workers had unionized or were trying to unionize, citing safety concerns like crime, though the company also closed a number of nonunion stores for the same stated reasons.
Industry officials argue that the bill will raise labor costs, and therefore menu prices, when inflation is already a widespread concern. A recent report by the Center for Economic Forecasting and Development at the University of California, Riverside, estimated that employers would pass along about one-third of any increase in labor compensation to consumers.
“We are pulling the fire alarm in all states to wake our members up about what’s going on in California,” said Matthew Haller, the president of the International Franchise Association, an industry group that opposes the bill. “We are concerned about other states — the multiplier effect of something like this.” California Senate Passes Bill to Regulate Fast-Food Industry Sign up for California Today The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings. Get it sent to your inbox.
Sbc jNetu ijorkeimcs
9 9/1/22, 8:24 AM California Senate Passes Bill to Regulate Fast-Food Industry - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/business/economy/california-fast-food-ab-257.html 2/2 Ingrid Vilorio, who works at a Jack in the Box franchise near Oakland, Calif., and who pressed legislators to back the bill during several trips to Sacramento, the state capital, said she believed the measure would lead to improvements in safety — for example, through rules that require employers to quickly repair or replace broken equipment like grills and fryers, which can cause burns.
Ms. Vilorio said she also hoped the council would crack down on problems like sexual harassment, wage theft and denial of paid sick leave. She said she and her co- workers went on strike last year to demand masks, hand sanitizer and the Covid-19 sick pay they were entitled to receive.
Jack in the Box did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Haller said state agencies were already authorized to crack down on employers who violate laws governing the payment of wages, safety, discrimination and harassment.
“The state has the existing tools at its disposal,” Mr. Haller said. “They should be more fully funded rather than put a punitive target on a subsection of a sector.” Mr. Haller and other opponents have cited a critique by the state’s Department of Finance arguing that the bill “could lead to a fragmented regulatory and legal environment for employers” and “exacerbate existing delays” in enforcement by increasing the burden on agencies that oversee existing rules. The bill does not provide additional funding for enforcement agencies.
David Weil, who under President Barack Obama oversaw the agency that enforces the federal minimum wage, said that, while funding is critical for labor regulators, the new council could benefit a broad swath of workers even without additional funding. For example, he said, raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers could increase wages for workers in other sectors, like retail, that compete with fast-food restaurants for labor.
But Dr. Weil agreed that creating new standards in the fast-food industry could end up drawing resources away from the enforcement of labor and employment laws in other industries where workers may be equally vulnerable.
Opponents managed to secure a number of concessions in the State Senate, such as preventing the council from creating sick-leave or paid-time-off benefits, or rules that restrict scheduling.
The Senate also eliminated a so-called joint liability provision, which would have allowed regulators to hold parent companies like McDonald’s liable for violations by franchise owners.
Noam Scheiber is a Chicago-based reporter who covers workers and the workplace. He spent nearly 15 years at The New Republic, where he covered economic policy and three presidential campaigns. He is the author of “The Escape Artists.” @noamscheiber
A version of this article appears in print on , Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: New California Bill Would Regulate Fast-Food Industry 9/1/22, 8:25 AM California Senate passes bill aimed to help fast-food workers - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-08-29/california-senate-pass-bill-fast-food-workers 1/3 California Legislature passes bill to protect fast-food workers Under the Fast Food Recovery Act, a council would be authorized to set the minimum wage and regulate working conditions for fast-food workers.
BY JAIMIE DING, SUHAUNA HUSSAIN
AUG. 29, 2022 UPDATED 7:38 PM PT
A California bill that aims to improve and standardize working conditions for fast-food workers will head to the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom after winning passage in the state Senate and Assembly on Monday over objections from business interests, which say it unfairly targets the fast-food industry and will drive up food prices.
The centerpiece of Assembly Bill 257, dubbed the Fast Food Recovery Act, is the creation of a state Fast Food Council with the authority to establish standards for wages, working hours and conditions.
The council would set aside seats for business and worker representatives. “We’re looking to give workers a voice on the job, and for workers in the fast-food industry, which will continue to try to organize, it’s tough,” said former legislator Lorena Gonzalez, the original author of the bill, who is no longer in the Assembly. “They’ve never had a voice on the job, and traditional organizing hasn’t worked.” The bill fell two votes short in the Assembly in the previous legislative session but passed in January this year after being reintroduced by Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena). It returned to the Assembly on Monday for another vote because of several amendments made while in the Senate to alleviate the concerns of some lawmakers.
Newsom has not stated a position on the bill, but his Department of Finance released an analysis in June opposing the measure, saying it would create “significant ongoing costs” at the Department of Industrial Relations and a “fragmented regulatory and legal environment” for employers.
ADVERTISEMENT
BUSINESS
The fast-food model lets corporations escape liability. California might chart a new course
Oct. 27, 2021
One major change was the removal of a joint liability clause that would have made a corporate franchiser responsible for labor law violations of its franchisees, a provision that opponents of the measure argued would greatly discourage franchising in the state.
Another reduces the size of the governing council and the number of seats allocated to state regulators, originally seven of 13 spots. The revised 10-person council includes four seats held by fast-food franchiser and franchisee representatives and four seats held by fast-food worker representatives and advocates.
The last two seats are for representatives of the Department of Industrial Relations and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, both of which would be gubernatorial appointees. 9/1/22, 8:25 AM California Senate passes bill aimed to help fast-food workers - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-08-29/california-senate-pass-bill-fast-food-workers 2/3 “What we have is a council that gives voice, which is what the labor code is all about,” said state Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), holding a copy of the labor code, ahead of the vote. “I think that a fair balance has been reached.”
The bill establishes that legislators will have sufficient time to review and potentially block any standards set by the council, and the council has a sunset in six years, allowing legislators to evaluate its effectiveness.
The new version of the bill also limits the minimum wage from rising above $22 an hour in 2023.
The legislation has been heavily opposed by the California Restaurant Assn., International Franchise Assn. and California Chamber of Commerce, which together sponsored the Stop AB 257 campaign.
The U.S. Black Chambers, National Asian/Pacific Islander American Chamber of Commerce and Entrepreneurship, and National LGBT Chamber of Commerce addressed a joint letter to legislators Monday urging them to vote no on the bill.
Jot Condie, president of the CRA, said the amendments don’t change the fact that the legislation still creates a council with rule-making authority that bypasses the Legislature. “You can shift the council around, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are handing the keys to an unaccountable council to do fundamental work,” Condie said. “Fundamental matters in workplace policy should be considered and dealt with by elected officials.” Condie pointed to California labor law enforcement data that show fast-food restaurants account for only 1.6% of labor violations across all sectors and the sector is one of the “better performers in compliance.”
If the council chose to raise the minimum wage to $22 an hour, it would lead to a 20% increase in restaurant food prices, the bill’s opponents say, citing a report from the UC Riverside School of Business’ Center for Economic Forecasting and Development.
Blair Salisbury, owner of an El Cholo in Pasadena and former president of CRA’s Los Angeles chapter, said he was planning on franchising a local restaurant called Daddy’s Chicken Shack when AB 257 gave him pause.
“It just gave me very cold feet,” he said. Under the 20-restaurant agreement he entered into, he will open one location himself and must find 19 other people to open franchises in five years. He believes AB 257 will make it more difficult to find franchisees.
Salisbury also believes increases in minimum wage will lead to restaurants cutting their labor force and finding ways to automate their operations wherever possible. In his restaurant, Salisbury had to eliminate three prep cooks because of increases in the minimum wage, he said.
Ahead of the vote, Republican lawmakers vehemently criticized the legislation, saying it did not address enforcement of existing labor law and gave “unchecked authority to an unelected council.”
BUSINESS
Column: California has an answer for worker abuse in the fast-food industry
Feb. 2, 2022
Fast-food workers across California have rallied in support of the bill, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has given service industry workers new frustration and visibility as they continue to operate in grueling, sometimes hazardous conditions.
A study by the UCLA and UC Berkeley labor centers found almost two-thirds of fast-food workers have experienced wage theft, and more than half have faced health and safety hazards on the job. Of the workers who raised concerns with their employers, about a third reported that their employer did nothing to resolve the issue, while 25% experienced retaliation, the study found. “We’re not trying to tell these franchisees and corporations how to run their business. We just want them to listen to some of our ideas, that’s it,” said Anneisha Williams, who works part time at a Jack in the Box at Slauson and Arlington avenues in South Los Angeles.
Williams, 37, filed a labor complaint in June alleging Jack in the Box did not adequately pay her when she had to stay home to take care of her son, who was required to quarantine because of COVID exposure for periods of January and February of this year, according to the complaint.
Williams said that when she asked her store manager about COVID pay, he told her she was not entitled to it since she herself had not tested positive. “We shouldn’t have to struggle so much,” Williams said. “We want to be treated like we’re actually human beings.” Sectoral bargaining, in which unions negotiate for workers across an entire industry, is common in Europe. Though not exactly the same, the council established by AB 257 would be the first sectoral council of its kind in the U.S., to Gonzalez’s knowledge.
David Madland, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, called the legislation the “most important pro-worker bill in decades” in a post-vote news conference.
The sectoral approach “empowers workers, creates a forum for all stakeholders to come together and raises standards across a whole industry,” he said.
Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, said she was confident that Newsom would sign the bill into law. 9/1/22, 8:25 AM California Senate passes bill aimed to help fast-food workers - Los Angeles Times https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-08-29/california-senate-pass-bill-fast-food-workers 3/3 Gonzalez said she believes the amendments have addressed many of the concerns lawmakers and business interests had with the initial iteration of the bill. “Now it’s simply do you believe that workers should have a voice at the table, bring up issues and set standards around the workplace?” Gonzalez said. “That’s all.”