Who would have thought this would have happened?

    • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The law says it only applies to businesses that have over 60 locations nationwide. Back in real life and not “woah conservative bro I’m so traumatized” world, Fosters Freeze has 62 locations. So to avoid this law, they’d have to close 3 of them. Also not sure whether it applies to franchisees, and I’m sure you have absolutely no idea either.

      • NeuromancerOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes it applies to franchises. So you think foster should close two and move grow again ?

        • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, I think they should figure out how to be profitable enough to pay their employees enough to live on in California. Not sure why that’s a difficult concept.

          • NeuromancerOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            They already pay them enough. 20 isn’t some Magic number. It’s a number the government made up with no logic.

            Since inflation has lowered sales. It means fewer jobs for people who will have a hard time getting a job. Way to go California.

            The employees said they were happy with their pay. They’d rather have 16 an hour than no job.

            • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I’d bet they’d rather have a wage consistent with COL and better work/life balance than an arbitrary $16/hr.

              Nobody likes being exploited for profit.

              • NeuromancerOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 months ago

                Exactly. It’s why the arbitrary 20 is stupid

                • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  20 is a compromise between what’s actually livable and what employers are willing to pay.

                  I agree it’s a stupid number, it should be higher and based off the cost of housing and rate of inflation.

                  • NeuromancerOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Considering they were living just fine on 16, it’s hard to argue it wasn’t enough. Now they have zero.