Gov. Gavin Newsom's campaign donor says his Panera Bread restaurants will follow new minimum wage law after backlash
Gov. Gavin Newsom's campaign donor says his Panera Bread restaurants will follow new minimum wage law after backlash
A wealthy campaign donor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom said his Panera Bread restaurants will comply with a new minimum wage law
You're viewing a single thread.
“California's statewide minimum wage is $16 per hour. Newsom signed a law last year that says fast food restaurants that are part of a chain with at least 60 locations nationally must pay their workers at least $20 per hour beginning April 1. But the law does not apply to restaurants that have their own bakeries to make and sell bread as a stand-alone menu item.”
Is there an explanation as to why making your own bread means minimum wage laws cannot be applied to businesses that otherwise meet these requirements?
The explanation:
Flynn has been a generous donor to Newsom’s political campaigns, including contributing $100,000 to fight a failed recall effort against the governor. Bloomberg reported that the two men attended the same high school. Flynn also acquired a resort managed by Newsom’s hospitality business in 2014, but terminated the management contract about a year after the purchase, according to the news outlet.
That is unfortunate. Absolute red meat for both-sides-are-bad politics.
Because unfortunately, both sides are bad and one side is leaning hard on the other side being so off-the-rails they're openly ranting about how badly they want to lock up and kill minorities.
If you don't see how the absolute deranged criminality of the right is helping change expectations about what corruption is, you're naive.
Literally, your post proves it, you're more concerned with how it will affect people who see criminality and corruption on both sides, instead of admitting "Yeah, both sides do corrupt shit, but it's firmly clear one side is off the rails and readily wants to hurt people." It's really easy to not have to offer anything of substance to your constituents if all you have to say is "The other guys literally want to kill you" and you're being honest when you say it.
Your comment is literally an example of letting it slide. "That is unfortunate." No, its grifting and accepting bribery to carve out an exception for your fucking buddy, something you'd probably be screaming fucking bloody murder about if it was a Republican doing it. Guess what, we can cry bloody murder about both and not act like it's time to just let corruption happen because it isn't as bad as the other sides corruption.
What a joke.
I made my comment 2 minutes before yours so it’s wild to me that you read the real reason and still threw a fit with that wall of text. Y’all just live on outrage, huh?
This dude owns way more than just a few Panera bread and he was literally just trying to follow the law and even so he decided to go ahead and pay them anyways even though according to the lawyers, he probably could have gotten away with it but you’re right bOtH SiDeS ArE tHE sAmE
Random Internet Commenter Actually Reads the Response Challenge: Impossible.
If all you really took from it is "Both sides are the same" and not that "criminality actually has grades, and treating small crimes like they don't matter because big crimes exist is a fallacy" then you're an idiot.
Random Internet commenter so desperate to hate Democrats he has to go after donors challenge: Super Possible.
Shucky darn, how awful it is of me to critique the people I vote for.
I forgot, we're all supposed to be cult members who never question authority... Wait a minute that sounds all too familiar...
Maybe we shouldn't be angling to be just like the MAGA idiots in justifying our sides' criminality.
But if we criticize their criminality and hypocrisy, then they'll lose.
They certainly won't lose because of said criminality and hypocrisy, no. It's because we couldn't shut the fuck up and gawk at the other side
End the argument, or I will.
This dude owns way more than just a few Panera bread and he was literally just trying to follow the law and even so he decided to go ahead and pay them anyways even though according to the lawyers, he probably could have gotten away with it
Wait, you really think he was just going to do it if there wasn't a big corruption uproar?
End the argument, or I will.
Well, both sides are bad. It's just that one side is way, way worse.
Absolute red meat for both-sides-are-bad politics.
Not exactly a secret that local economic interests dictate policies to career climbers in the political scene. This isn't even a "both sides" thing. Its a "how does a democracy actually work in practice" thing. The Whigs operate like this. The UK Tories and Labour operate like this. The German Greens and the Spanish People's Party operate like this. Its the baseline of liberal democracy the world over.
Both sides are bad.
They're just looking out for different rich people.
People say voting 3rd party is a waste, but voting democrat just slows the loss.
Losing is still losing, lol.
people gonna find out the hard way the libertarian party is funded by psychos.
the democrats are the best that the current voting system can deliver and we should make more efforts to implement an alaska style top 4 RCV system in the future. The way you prevent corruption of elected officials is to make it very easy to vote them out.
The libertarian are psychos. The next time you meet one and you determine that they aren't just a Republican trying to have sex with a Democrat just mention to them "age of consent laws" and watch a small part of them die.
Just saying, I never mentioned libertarians.
Ranked-choice voting would be nice, but democrats don't support it because they're bad people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
Tell me, which states have ranked choice voting and which states are run by the "bad people"?
We're talking about California here
That is unfortunate. Absolute red meat for both-sides-are-bad politics.
Only if you really want it to be.
The real reason was because the law was specifically tailored for fast food, so to protect bakeries and other places it had the clause about the bread.
The law defines what a fast-food restaurant is, and says it is not an establishment that “operates a bakery that produces for sale on the establishment’s premises bread."
The donor was just confused if that meant him, ultimately he decided it probably did but that he’d pay them anyways.
But yeah this is totally the same thing as trump being friendly with Russia.
I like how Trump being so brazenly criminal has made it so we act like any other corruption just isn't so bad and thus should be ignored.
And by "like" I mean it makes me want to fucking kill myself it's so god damned stupid.
OK so now there’s corruption in checks notes, trying to obey the letter of the law. Interesting.
What proof do I have of this other than words you shat out onto a page? Maybe you'd have more people buying your version of the story if you bothered to produce even a shred of a link of evidence.
I'm supposed to just take the words of a random internet commenter at face value?
Permanently Deleted
Yeah...
He's a neoliberal and gets donations from Panera....
Cali should be full of progressives. But there's lots of money in being an incumbent in a seat the other party can't win.
Hell, Pelosi and AIPAC just got another I to the Senate. He'll keep taking donor money well after Pelosi is buried, and preventing a candidate that agrees with Cali voters from taking that seat for decades.
It can't change till we get them out of power in the Dem party, but we can't compete with their do ors money in a primary.
These days were lucky if we even get a primary.
Shit needs to change while it's still able to change
We need money out of politics.
Money is always been and will always be the problem.
It states why in the article.