“B 1228 applies to fast-food chains with at least 60 locations nationwide — except for those that make and sell their own bread. The bill’s landmark change is a minimum wage hike to $20 per hour, almost $5 higher than the Golden State’s minimum wage of $15.50.
It would also see the establishment of a Fast Food Council to set wages and make recommendations for working conditions. The council has the power to increase the new minimum wage each year through 2029 up to 3.5% or the average change in the Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners, whichever is lower.
One key part of the bill has been removed since its proposal. Previously, AB 1228 would have made fast-food corporations jointly liable if franchisees committed labor violations, which the NOA believes could have led to “frivolous lawsuits against franchisees” that would then force the larger corporate head offices to exert more control over local operations.”
“In the wake of the Hamas terrorist organization’s murderous attacks on Israel, the country’s government is admitting—not for the first time—that even Israel’s extensive security apparatus can’t be everywhere to protect everyone. Under the pressure of bloody events, officials are again making it easier for civilians to acquire and carry firearms for self-defense.
“Today I directed the Firearms Licensing Division to go on an emergency operation, in order to allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves,” announced National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. “The plan will take effect within 24 hours.”
By no means does the order eliminate the country’s tight restrictions on guns. But it’s an acknowledgment that too many Israelis were caught with limited access to the means of self-defense when Hamas terrorists crossed the border from Gaza and attacked civilians.”
“Two decades ago, it became clear that Congress was intent on trying to curtail illicit methamphetamine production by restricting access to pseudoephedrine, a meth precursor that was also widely used as a decongestant in cold and allergy remedies such as Sudafed. Pfizer, the manufacturer of Sudafed products, responded by announcing that it would start selling alternatives containing a different active ingredient: phenylephrine.”
“The main problem with phenylephrine: When taken orally, it is so thoroughly metabolized in the gut that almost none of it ends up in the bloodstream. “The new data appear compelling that the monographed dosage of oral [phenylephrine] results in no meaningful systemic exposure or evidence of efficacy,” says an FDA briefing document that was presented to the advisory committee. “Furthermore, the review suggests that higher doses…have also not shown efficacy. These findings are supported by in vitro and in vivo clinical pharmacology data showing that orally administered phenylephrine undergoes high first-pass metabolism resulting in less than 1% bioavailability.”
Legal restrictions on pseudoephedrine sales, in short, gave us reformulated products, including pseudo-Sudafed, that not only do not work as well but apparently do not work at all”
“Legal restrictions on pseudoephedrine, by contrast, took it off the shelves and put it behind the pharmacy counter, whence it can be retrieved only under certain conditions.”
“Restrictions on pseudoephedrine did affect the illicit methamphetamine trade, primarily by shifting production from small-scale U.S. operations toward large-scale Mexican traffickers. But by no means did that crimp the supply.”
“The battlefront starts with so-called “joint employer” or “joint liability” standards, which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is expected to officially impose soon. This would essentially require franchisee employees to be counted as employees of the franchisor parent corporation by holding the franchisor liable for the actions of its individual franchisees. It also would make it easier for unions to organize at the parent company level, rather than via individual franchise outlets. Progressives have been pushing for years to impose joint employer standards onto the franchise model, and the Biden administration is echoing the Obama administration in following through (after a brief hiatus during Donald Trump’s presidency).”
“Left-leaning policy makers are not stopping at the federal level, either, as states like California are also considering joint liability bills. Last year, when California passed its controversial FAST Recovery Act, which not only raised minimum wages for restaurant workers to $22 an hour but also created a 10-member Fast Food Council to oversee and regulate the entire industry, the legislation also included new joint liability rules.
The joint liability language was removed from the bill before it passed, but once the franchise and restaurant industry fought back by getting a referendum for the FAST Act to qualify for the 2024 ballot, liberal state lawmakers suddenly reintroduced a stand-alone joint liability bill. The joint liability idea is already spreading beyond the Golden State—ironically known as the birthplace of fast food—to states such as New York.”
“Being the proprietor of a franchise has long been seen as one of the preeminent—and most readily accessible—ways to achieve the American dream. Franchise ownership often requires lower startup capital compared to other types of businesses and provides training in the requisite expertise and knowledge needed to operate the business.
As a result, the franchise model is recognized as providing more opportunities for those in underrepresented communities. This is reflected in the ownership numbers, as 30 percent of franchises are minority-owner compared to only 18 percent of other types of businesses. Some have even called the franchise system “the safety net of the economy,” since a recently laid-off worker in an unrelated sector can turn around and buy a franchise and receive the guidance needed to succeed.
According to the International Franchise Association, the Obama-era version of the joint employer standard cost franchises over $33 billion annually and resulted in 376,000 lost job opportunities. Perhaps most alarmingly, it led to an over 90 percent increase in litigation against franchises.”