Clown And King Held Hostage, Communist California Government Creates Fast Food Politburo In Latest Power Grab

Always in search of a solution to a problem they created and have no real intention of ever solving so they can run on it forever, democRATs have just grabbed control of virtually all fast food companies in California. They called it AB 257 or the FAST Recovery Act (another Alinsky naming trick) and it just passed the legislature and was signed by governor hairdo (who has 126,000 followers…on TruthSocial…somehow), and who was caught on video violating his own mask and gathering mandates (at the French Laundry restaurant in Yountville, California), the stated goal is to take hourly pay from the already barely sustainable $15 an hour (it cost you your Value Menu, and jobs) to $22 an hour in less than a year, but they won’t stop there.

What this really is is a way to unionize without needing to have actual unions. The EU sets work standards across an entire industry rather than with a single company and calls it ‘sectoral bargaining’ (SB). That is prohibited by U.S. Federal labor law but democRATs never met a law (even ones they helped pass) that they didn’t want to subvert. So-called labor leaders even admit this is a back door method of SB or unions themselves. And with California having over half a million fast food workers, the alt-far-left just couldn’t help themselves.

It is not the job of government to pick winners and losers, but that is what democRATs do and it lines their own pockets. They even allege that the vast majority of those working fast food are women (but refuse to define what that term means) and “people of color”. If so, then only because you didn’t educate them properly in government schools. So they have now created a ‘council’ of 13 that includes only FOUR Business Community Representatives (BCR) and it takes just SIX votes to pass rules (even if all 4 BCR’s vote no). Does that sound like ‘democracy'[SIC]?!

The industry says this is micromanaging and customers will pay more as a consequence as it will make it more costly to operate and that existing rules should be enforced instead of making new ones. That is the same argument Second Amendment advocates make when democRATs want new gun laws rather than enforcing the tens of thousands at federal, state and local levels that already exist.

To be fair, franchisees are the ones who will be hurt here, as companies have already taken advantage of them and now government will join in, ostensibly to help workers, by putting the squeeze on them. This move could end up killing franchising of fast food in California and if the idea spreads (as most bad California ideas tend to do), then elsewhere as well. The easiest example is wages. The $15 an hour is supposed to go up 50 cents on January 1 already, but now it will go up $7 more by this time next year. The only ways to do that are by cutting jobs and raising prices, which will raise inflation.

In the case of McDonald’s, almost 10% of their locations in the USA are in California, and approximately 90%* of their USA locations are franchised, so roughly 9 out of every 10 locations in California would be under control by this. If a McDonald’s franchisee there has 2 locations, they would be covered, but if they owned 10 restaurants that aren’t part of a national chain like McDonald’s they would not be. Sounds fair, right? Nope! And those targeted wonder why this doesn’t apply to everyone.

As usual, they pushed this as far left as they could and an earlier version (changed at the last minute) allowed for control over pay rates and scheduling by location as well as holding companies responsible for ‘labor violations’ by franchisees. So you could have had 50 stores in the state, run 5 and franchised 45 and if just ONE of the franchise runners got out of line YOU would have been on the hook.

Any chain with 100 locations NATIONWIDE is covered (revised from 30 in original proposal), so if you have 100 in the USA and just 1 in California, then governor control freak gets to micromanage you. Who the fuck would want to do business under these conditions? People who don’t want to be in business long.

*82%-95% depending on the source…