Days before California’s new fast-food labor law goes into effect, the owner of an ice cream shop in Southern California is raising new questions about who exactly the law applies to and why one labor group, and not the government, is determining which chains are exempt.The law has been at the center of controversy as the governor faces allegations he pushed for a special exemption for bakeries to benefit one of his billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee. Nondisclosure agreements were also used in the last-minute negotiations of the law. The law will require major fast-food chains operating in California to start paying their workers at least $20 an hour on April 1. The law also requires those chains to follow pay raises and other rules developed by a special state council until at least 2029.Gaby Campbell, a franchisee of one Handel’s Ice Cream location, said she has spent the last six months trying to figure out if her shop falls under the new law. Campbell testified virtually at the state’s fast-food council meeting on March 15 noting federal law does not consider ice cream shops and other similar snack vendors as “limited-service restaurants.”Handel’s only sells ice cream treats and has more than 120 locations nationwide, with about 40 of them located in California. Campbell told KCRA 3 her employees are mostly high school and college students who work a few hours at a time. During warmer months, with wages and tips, her workers can already make more than $20 an hour.”It’s unfathomable that somebody would think that a business like ours should be lumped in with fast food,” Campbell told KCRA 3 in an interview on Wednesday.According to California’s new fast-food labor law, “national fast food chain” means a set of limited-service restaurants consisting of more than 60 establishments nationwide that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products and services, and which are primarily engaged in providing food and beverages for immediate consumption on or off premises where patrons generally order or select items and pay before consuming, with limited or no table service. The law states “limited-service restaurant” includes, but is not limited to, an establishment with the North American Industry Classification System Code 722513.Campbell notes according to the North American Industry Classification System, ice cream parlors are classified under a different code, known as 722515. Campbell has been trying to figure out if California’s use of the phrase “not limited to” means her parlor is included in the state’s law. She said this means chain yogurt, pretzel, boba tea, and cinnamon bun shops could be roped into the law, along with restaurants like Golden Corral and Sizzler.The new law was negotiated behind closed doors and led by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office. KCRA 3 first reported those discussions are protected under a nondisclosure agreement that was required by the Service Employees International Union. Newsom’s office has said no one in the office signed the NDAs. The result of those negotiations was placed into the legislation publicly on the third to last day of the legislative session in 2023, meaning it was too late for any changes to be made before it passed. It also means small business owners like Campbell may never know how exactly those at the negotiating table determined which chains would be included.Since then, Campbell said she contacted Newsom’s office four times but never received a response. She also reached out to Assemblyman Chris Holden, who told KCRA 3 that despite writing the law, he was not part of the law’s negotiations. Holden’s office directed Campbell to the SEIU and Unite Here, the two groups that were working on a cleanup bill this year (A.B. 610) to carve out restaurants with workers who already have collective bargaining agreements. Sources have told KCRA 3 that the bill was considered “clean up” because SEIU’s use of NDAs left other labor groups in the dark about the negotiations in 2023.”We did have a staff member tell us that ice cream parlors were not the intent of the bill. We just don’t have anyone that’s willing to put it in writing for us,” Campbell said. “We’re not asking for an exemption; we’re just asking for clarification.”Campbell said Unite Here told her the group could not help because it was working on ensuring its union workers were exempt from the bill. SEIU did not respond to her until she and other franchisees hired an attorney.Campbell said a representative with SEIU on March 15 was going to fly from Sacramento to visit a Handel’s location in Southern California to help determine if the chain should be exempt. Campbell said the flight kept getting delayed, and SEIU canceled without rescheduling.Campbell said SEIU eventually decided the cleanup bill was not going to include an exemption for her, and that she needed to get her own legislation written.”It’s upsetting that someone can write a law like this, hand it over to unions, and walk away from it,” Campbell said. “I just don’t even understand how that’s legal.”Campbell said she has tried to reach out to several state lawmakers and has heard back from a few that she said have been receptive to the issue. After the fast food council’s first meeting, she said she spoke to the council’s attorney which she said left her with more questions than answers.Assemblyman Chris Holden has not responded to a request for comment. A spokesman for SEIU California referred KCRA 3 to the California Labor Commission. No state leader involved or member of SEIU has responded to KCRA 3’s question if they intended to include ice cream shops in the new law.”California’s landmark law raising wages for over 500,000 workers will result in urgently needed relief for working families on April 1, when the wage increase takes effect,” the SEIU California spokesman said in a statement. The SEIU has previously said KCRA 3’s reporting on its use of nondisclosure agreements is a “nothingburger.””Entities who will determine who will be subject to the law include the labor commissioner’s office, the fast-food council, and potentially the courts,” said Alex Stack, a spokesman for Gov. Newsom, told KCRA.Campbell told KCRA 3 she has hired a lobbyist and attorneys. When asked if she’s considering taking legal action she said, “I think everything is on the table.”
Days before California’s new fast-food labor law goes into effect, the owner of an ice cream shop in Southern California is raising new questions about who exactly the law applies to and why one labor group, and not the government, is determining which chains are exempt.
The law has been at the center of controversy as the governor faces allegations he pushed for a special exemption for bakeries to benefit one of his billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee. Nondisclosure agreements were also used in the last-minute negotiations of the law. The law will require major fast-food chains operating in California to start paying their workers at least $20 an hour on April 1. The law also requires those chains to follow pay raises and other rules developed by a special state council until at least 2029.
Gaby Campbell, a franchisee of one Handel’s Ice Cream location, said she has spent the last six months trying to figure out if her shop falls under the new law. Campbell testified virtually at the state’s fast-food council meeting on March 15 noting federal law does not consider ice cream shops and other similar snack vendors as “limited-service restaurants.”
Handel’s only sells ice cream treats and has more than 120 locations nationwide, with about 40 of them located in California. Campbell told KCRA 3 her employees are mostly high school and college students who work a few hours at a time. During warmer months, with wages and tips, her workers can already make more than $20 an hour.
“It’s unfathomable that somebody would think that a business like ours should be lumped in with fast food,” Campbell told KCRA 3 in an interview on Wednesday.
According to California’s new fast-food labor law, “national fast food chain” means a set of limited-service restaurants consisting of more than 60 establishments nationwide that share a common brand, or that are characterized by standardized options for decor, marketing, packaging, products and services, and which are primarily engaged in providing food and beverages for immediate consumption on or off premises where patrons generally order or select items and pay before consuming, with limited or no table service. The law states “limited-service restaurant” includes, but is not limited to, an establishment with the North American Industry Classification System Code 722513.
Campbell notes according to the North American Industry Classification System, ice cream parlors are classified under a different code, known as 722515. Campbell has been trying to figure out if California’s use of the phrase “not limited to” means her parlor is included in the state’s law. She said this means chain yogurt, pretzel, boba tea, and cinnamon bun shops could be roped into the law, along with restaurants like Golden Corral and Sizzler.
The new law was negotiated behind closed doors and led by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office. KCRA 3 first reported those discussions are protected under a nondisclosure agreement that was required by the Service Employees International Union. Newsom’s office has said no one in the office signed the NDAs.
The result of those negotiations was placed into the legislation publicly on the third to last day of the legislative session in 2023, meaning it was too late for any changes to be made before it passed. It also means small business owners like Campbell may never know how exactly those at the negotiating table determined which chains would be included.
Since then, Campbell said she contacted Newsom’s office four times but never received a response. She also reached out to Assemblyman Chris Holden, who told KCRA 3 that despite writing the law, he was not part of the law’s negotiations. Holden’s office directed Campbell to the SEIU and Unite Here, the two groups that were working on a cleanup bill this year (A.B. 610) to carve out restaurants with workers who already have collective bargaining agreements. Sources have told KCRA 3 that the bill was considered “clean up” because SEIU’s use of NDAs left other labor groups in the dark about the negotiations in 2023.
“We did have a staff member tell us that ice cream parlors were not the intent of the bill. We just don’t have anyone that’s willing to put it in writing for us,” Campbell said. “We’re not asking for an exemption; we’re just asking for clarification.”
Campbell said Unite Here told her the group could not help because it was working on ensuring its union workers were exempt from the bill. SEIU did not respond to her until she and other franchisees hired an attorney.
Campbell said a representative with SEIU on March 15 was going to fly from Sacramento to visit a Handel’s location in Southern California to help determine if the chain should be exempt. Campbell said the flight kept getting delayed, and SEIU canceled without rescheduling.
Campbell said SEIU eventually decided the cleanup bill was not going to include an exemption for her, and that she needed to get her own legislation written.
“It’s upsetting that someone can write a law like this, hand it over to unions, and walk away from it,” Campbell said. “I just don’t even understand how that’s legal.”
Campbell said she has tried to reach out to several state lawmakers and has heard back from a few that she said have been receptive to the issue. After the fast food council’s first meeting, she said she spoke to the council’s attorney which she said left her with more questions than answers.
Assemblyman Chris Holden has not responded to a request for comment. A spokesman for SEIU California referred KCRA 3 to the California Labor Commission. No state leader involved or member of SEIU has responded to KCRA 3’s question if they intended to include ice cream shops in the new law.
“California’s landmark law raising wages for over 500,000 workers will result in urgently needed relief for working families on April 1, when the wage increase takes effect,” the SEIU California spokesman said in a statement. The SEIU has previously said KCRA 3’s reporting on its use of nondisclosure agreements is a “nothingburger.”
“Entities who will determine who will be subject to the law include the labor commissioner’s office, the fast-food council, and potentially the courts,” said Alex Stack, a spokesman for Gov. Newsom, told KCRA.
Campbell told KCRA 3 she has hired a lobbyist and attorneys. When asked if she’s considering taking legal action she said, “I think everything is on the table.”