• eric
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why not all workers?

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      From the article, it sounds like there’s been specific legal stuff going on that influenced this:

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

      It also settles — for now, at least — a fight between labor and business groups over how to regulate the industry. In exchange for higher pay, labor unions have dropped their attempt to make fast food corporations liable for the misdeeds of their independent franchise operators in California, an action that could have upended the business model on which the industry is based. The industry, meanwhile, has agreed to pull a referendum related to worker wages off the 2024 ballot.

      So yeah, labor unions bringing cases that could effectively dismantle the corporate/franchisee relationship is a big, big deal to fast food companies, which are generally the most “franchised” types of businesses in the US. Agreeing to higher pay to slow unionization efforts and to outright stop cases that change how the core of their businesses function seems like a smart short-term move on their part.

      It would still be better if it was for everyone, but this particularly seems to have some history behind why it happened for just these workers.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This focus is kinda weird ngl. Why is fast food entertainment being protected and promoted? Let the market crush this shit - we don’t need more McDonald’s garbage in this world.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Welp, decades of data can tell you that “letting the market crush this shit” ain’t working.

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You and I have very different definitions on what it means to let the market do it’s thing, I think.

          You aware how heavily subsidized beef is, for McDonald’s sake?

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think your post makes sense.

        Fast food is being targeted for not paying their workers a living wage. This is the opposite of protection and promotion.

        The government is stepping in because the ‘free market’ hasn’t corrected this and won’t correct it.

        Am I misunderstanding where you’re coming from?

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In a way it does protect the market by forcing it competitive. The market definitely has the power to squeeze fast food out of existence.

  • Tygr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    No federal limit to executive pay and incentives then? Problem not solved but I’m happy some effort was made at the state level

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m all for it, but this creates an issue for skilled labor making roughly the same wage.

    Basically everyone needs like 100% more money.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t create an issue, creates an opportunity

      “Pay me more or I’ll go get a job at a fast food place” is a simple and easy argument for raises at any reasonable place

      • Mudface@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or just work a part time gig at McDonald’s for a couple 5 hour shifts a week to supplement your career job.

        Makes it pretty appealing to think about flipping some burgers for $20 an hour, $100 a day 2-3 days a week.

        Could be an extra $1,000 a month or so for people looking for something to supplement their income.

        • monk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It disincentives gaining skills that can only earn less than 40k a year.

        • acceptable_pumpkin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re looking at this backwards. It essentially would make a business compete with every other minimum wage job if all they’re offering is $20/h. They either raise wages to lure skilled workers, or try to provide some other benefits.

        • sadreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is that what teevee to you?

          Real issue that this is not a universal wage increase. I don’t get why it is only for “fast food” workers

    • DjMeas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s unskilled labor at all. If anything, your so-called skilled labor is underpaying you then. We shouldn’t hold others down.

    • Basically everyone needs like 100% more money.

      Yes. They do. If you’re doing something vastly more specialized than making food quickly, you should be paid much more than $20/hour.

      And in California, $20/hour still isn’t a livable wage.