California Fast Food Restaurant Minimum Wage and Labor Regulations Referendum (2024)

California Fast Food Restaurant Minimum Wage and Labor Regulations Referendum
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Minimum wage and Business regulation
Status Not on the ballot
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens

The California Fast Food Restaurant Minimum Wage and Labor Regulations Referendum is not on the ballot in California as a veto referendum on November 5, 2024.

On September 11, 2023, Save Local Restaurants, the campaign behind the veto referendum announced that it had reached a compromise with the state legislature under Assembly Bill 1228. The bill will set a minimum wage of $20 per hour for limited-service restaurants that are part of a chain with more than 60 locations beginning on April 1, 2024. The bill also established a Fast Food Council with the authority to increase the hourly minimum wage annually by no more than the lesser of 3.5% or the change in inflation. Assembly Bill 257, the targeted legislation of the veto referendum, was also repealed. Save Our Local Restaurants withdrew the referendum on December 29, 2023.

Overview

What would Assembly Bill 257 have changed about the fast food industry in California?

See also: Measure design

The veto referendum would have repealed Assembly Bill 257 (AB 257), which was signed into law on September 5, 2022. Under the compromise passed in September 2023, AB 257 was repealed and replaced with Assembly Bill 1228. AB 257 would have authorized the creation of a 10-member fast food council within the Department of Industrial Relations. AB 257 would have authorized the council to "establish sectorwide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions adequate to ensure and maintain the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant workers." The law would have authorized the labor commissioner and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to enforce the regulations adopted by the state council. The labor commissioner would have been required to investigate alleged violations and order appropriate remediation.

AB 257 would have authorized the council to adopt a minimum wage for fast food restaurant employees not to exceed $22 per hour at its implementation but increased every year by the lesser of 3.5% or rate of change in inflation.

Who supported and opposed Assembly Bill 257?

See also: Support for 'Yes' vote and Support for 'No' vote

Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-41), a former fast-food franchisee, authored AB 257. The law received support from AFSCME California, California Labor Federation, SEIU California State Council, Unite HERE, ACLU of California, and the California Employment Lawyers Association. Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, said, "It’s time for corporations like McDonald’s, Amazon, Starbucks and Delta to come to a national bargaining table to raise standards across their industries and ensure every worker is respected, protected and paid a living wage."

Save Local Restaurants led the campaign in support of a 'no' vote on the referendum, which would repeal the legislation. As of October 31, 2023, the committee reported receiving $71.7 million in contributions. The top donors are Chipotle Mexican Grill ($12.8 million), In-N-Out Burgers ($12.8 million), and Chick-fil-a ($11.5 million). Joe Erlinger, president of McDonald’s USA, said, "Last fall, the legislature passed a bill–AB257, or the FAST Act–almost entirely at the behest of organized labor’s firm grip on many of the state’s lawmakers. It makes it all but impossible to run small business restaurants, but the impacts are far beyond that. Under the FAST Act, an unelected council of political insiders, not local business owners and their teams, would make big decisions about crucial elements of running a business, fracturing the economy in the process."

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

The referendum would have overturned Assembly Bill 257 (AB 257), which was signed into law on September 5, 2022. AB 257 was repealed by a legislative compromise between state legislators and Save Our Local Restaurants via the passage of Assembly Bill 1228. AB 257 would enact the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act or FAST Recovery Act.

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of AB 257.

Fast food council: Membership and purpose

AB 257 would have authorized the creation of the fast food council within the Department of Industrial Relations. It would have been composed of 10 members consisting of the following:

• one representative from the Department of Industrial Relations,
• two representatives of fast food restaurant franchisors,
• two representatives of fast food restaurant franchisees,
• two representatives of fast food restaurant employees,
• two representatives of advocates for fast food restaurant employees, and
• one representative from the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development.

The governor would have appointed all representatives, except for the two representatives of advocates for fast food restaurant employees, which would have been appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Rules Committee (one each).

Each term would have been four years, and council members would be term-limited to two consecutive terms. A chairperson would have been appointed from among the council members by the governor.

AB 257 states that the council's purpose would be to "establish sectorwide minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other working conditions adequate to ensure and maintain the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant workers."

The law would have required the council to review health, safety, and employment standards once every three years. The law would also have required the council to hold open meetings or hearings no less than every six months.

Counties or cities with a population greater than 200,000 would have been authorized to create a local fast food council. The council would have been composed of at least one representative of a fast food restaurant franchisor or franchisee; at least one representative who is a fast food restaurant employee; and a majority of representatives from local employment, health, and safety agencies. Local fast food councils could have made recommendations to the state fast food council.

The law would have dissolved the council permanently on January 1, 2029.

Fast food restaurant labor regulations: Minimum wage, labor standards, and enforcement

The council would not have been allowed to promulgate rules or standards until the Director of Industrial Relations received a petition approving the creation of the council signed by at least 10,000 California fast food restaurant employees.

Regulations could have been adopted by the council by a simple majority vote. If regulations adopted by the council were in conflict with regulations adopted by another state agency, the conflicting regulations from the other state agency would not have been appied to fast food restaurant employees, franchisees, or franchisors.

The council would have been required to submit a report on any changes or adoptions of labor standards and regulations to the appropriate committees on labor of each chamber of the state legislature by January 15 of each year. The changes would have taken effect no sooner than October 15, excluding emergency standards adopted.

Labor standards and regulations adopted by the council would not have superseded a standard covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement provides similar or greater protection.

Fast food employee minimum wage

AB 257 would have authorized the council to adopt a minimum wage for fast food restaurant employees not to exceed $22 per hour in 2023. On January 1, 2024, and every year after, the law would have authorized the council to increase the minimum wage by the lesser of one of the following:

(i) 3.5%

(ii) the rate of change of the U.S. Consumer Price Index from the prior two years.

Enforcement of minimum wage and standards

The law would have authorized the labor commissioner and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to enforce the regulations adopted by the state council. The labor commissioner would have been required to investigate alleged violations and order appropriate remediation.

The law would have also prohibited a fast food restaurant operator from firing, discriminating, or retaliating against any employee for filing a complaint or disclosing information to persons in authority, the media, the legislature, a watchdog organization, or a governmental agency. Under the law, any fast food restaurant employee would have been entitled to a right of action, reinstatement, lost wages or benefits, and attorney's fees.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title would have been as follows:

“

Referendum challenging 2022 law authorizing creation of council to set minimum wage and working standards for fast-food workers.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:

“

If the required number of registered voters sign this petition and it is timely filed, a 2022 law will not take effect unless approved at the next statewide general or special election after November 8, 2022. The challenged law: • Authorizes creation of Fast Food Council (upon submission of 10,000 fast-food worker signatures) to set working standards and minimum wage (up to $22/hour in 2023, with capped annual increases) at fast-food restaurants with 100+ nationwide locations; • Prohibits retaliation against fast-food workers for making certain workplace complaints.

”

Full text

The full text of the referendum is below:

Support for 'Yes' vote

Supporters

Officials

• Assemblyman Chris Holden (D)

Unions

• AFSCME California
• California Labor Federation
• SEIU California State Council
• Unite HERE

Organizations

• ACLU of California
• California Employment Lawyers Association

Arguments

• Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), the author of AB 257 and a former fast-food franchisee: "AB 257 creates minimum standards for wages and work conditions, protects workers from being fired for organizing and establishes sectoral organizing with a fast food worker council. I’m proud to have ushered an inclusive approach to the industry by giving employees the chance to be included in a process that has always impacted them."
• Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union: "Ten years after 200 fast-food workers walked off the job in New York City and galvanized an international movement of workers demanding $15/hr and union rights, the passage of AB 257 is the most significant advance in workers’ fight for fairness on the job in a generation. Workers from coast to coast are stepping into their power, and they’ll take their fight to any company in any industry. It’s time for corporations like McDonald’s, Amazon, Starbucks and Delta to come to a national bargaining table to raise standards across their industries and ensure every worker is respected, protected and paid a living wage."

Support for 'No' vote

Save Local Restaurants led the campaign in support of a 'no' vote on the referendum, which would repeal the legislation.

Opponents

Corporations

• Blaze Pizza
• Chick-fil-A
• Chipotle Mexican Grill
• Domino's Pizza
• In-N-Out Burgers
• Starbucks
• The Wendy's Company
• Wing Stop

Organizations

• International Franchise Association Franchising Political Action Committee Inc
• McDonald's Corporation Political Action Committee
• National Restaurant Association PAC (Restaurant PAC)
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

• Joe Erlinger, president of McDonald’s USA: "Last fall, the legislature passed a bill–AB257, or the FAST Act–almost entirely at the behest of organized labor’s firm grip on many of the state’s lawmakers. It makes it all but impossible to run small business restaurants, but the impacts are far beyond that. Under the FAST Act, an unelected council of political insiders, not local business owners and their teams, would make big decisions about crucial elements of running a business, fracturing the economy in the process."
• Save Local Restaurants: "The FAST Act would have an enormous impact on Californians, and clearly voters want a say in whether it should stand. The measure would establish an unelected council to control labor policy in the counter-service restaurant industry, cause food prices to increase by as much as 20% during a period of decades-high inflation, and harm thousands of small family-, minority-, and women-owned businesses across the state. Given less than one-third of Californians support AB 257, it is no surprise that over one million Californians have voiced their concerns with the legislation. The Save Local Restaurants coalition is committed to helping ensure this bad law will not go into effect and voters have their voices heard."
• Sean P. Redmond, vice president of labor policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "Of course, the real goal of this legislation is to force whatever franchisors that remain to accept unionization at their various locations, a goal that organized labor has fantasized about since starting the so-called 'Fight for $15' movement ten years ago. At a time when economic headwinds like record inflation are making it increasingly difficult for businesses, a proposal like AB 257 would make it much harder—and more expensive—for restaurant owners to operate."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through September 30, 2023. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is January 31, 2024.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

There is one committee registered to sponsor the referendum—Save Local Restaurants. The committee reported over $71.7 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$71,668,164.78	$52,341.51	$71,720,506.29	$21,431,441.20	$21,483,782.71

Referendum sponsor committee

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee sponsoring the referendum.

Committees in opposition to Fast Food Restaurant Minimum Wage and Labor Regulations Referendum
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Save Local Restaurants	$71,668,164.78	$52,341.51	$71,720,506.29	$21,431,441.20	$21,483,782.71
Total	$71,668,164.78	$52,341.51	$71,720,506.29	$21,431,441.20	$21,483,782.71

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee sponsoring the referendum.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Chipotle Mexican Grill	$12,838,000.00	$0.00	$12,838,000.00
In-N-Out Burgers	$12,838,000.00	$0.00	$12,838,000.00
Chick-fil-a	$11,588,000.00	$0.00	$11,588,000.00
McDonalds	$11,054,934.00	$52,204.00	$11,107,138.00
National Restaurant Association	$5,493,000.00	$0.00	$5,493,000.00

Background

Assembly Bill 1228 (2023)

On September 11, 2023, Save Local Restaurants, the campaign behind the veto referendum announced that it had reached a compromise with the state legislature under Assembly Bill 1228. AB 1228 passed along party lines in the Senate by a vote of 32-8. It was also passed along party lines in the state Assembly by a vote of 53-17. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed it on September 28, 2023.

AB 1228 was designed to raise the hourly minimum wage to $20 for fast food employees. Similar to AB 257, it was designed to create a fast food industry council to advise on future wage increases and working conditions.

Save Our Local Restaurants, the campaign behind the referendum, said it would withdraw the veto referendum by January 1, 2023. It was withdrawn on December 29, 2023.

Assembly Bill 257 (2022)

On August 29, 2022, Assembly Bill 257 (AB 257), the targeted legislation of the referendum, was approved with amendments by the state Senate by a vote of 21-12 with seven absent. The state House concurred and passed AB 257 by a vote of 47-19 with 14 absent. It was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on September 5.

Vote in the California State Assembly August 29, 2022
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 41  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	47	19	14
Total percent	58.75%	23.75%	17.5%
Democrat	47	0	13
Republican	0	18	1
Independent	0	1	0

Vote in the California State Senate August 29, 2022
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	21	12	7
Total percent	52.50%	30.00%	17.50%
Democrat	21	3	7
Republican	0	9	0

Fast food industry in California

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that California had 360,980 fast food or counter workers employed as of May 2021. The hourly mean wage was $15.61, which was the third highest behind Washington, D.C. ($ 16.56) and the state of Washington ($ 15.82).

Senate Bill 3 (2016)

Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) was a legislative compromise passed in 2016. SB 3 was designed to incrementally increase the statewide minimum wage until it reached $15 in 2022 and adjust it annually by inflation. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees did not have to meet the $15 per hour minimum wage until 2023. The bill was also designed to allow the governor to delay minimum wage hikes in the event of an economic decline. It passed in the state senate by a vote of 23-15 with two senators absent or not voting. It passed in the state house by a vote of 48-26 with four members absent or not voting.

SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsoring group behind a $15 minimum wage initiative, which qualified for the November 2016 ballot on March 22, 2016, was involved with negotiations surrounding the approved legislation. After Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed SB 3, SEIU-UHW West withdrew its initiative on June 23, 2016. A second initiative sponsored by the state council of SEIU stopped circulating its petition and withdrew it on April 1, 2016.

California veto referendum ballot measures

See also: List of California veto referendum ballot measures

A veto referendum is a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature. Opponents of the law collect signatures to place the veto referendum on the ballot, with the aim of voters deciding to repeal the law. In California, voters have voted on 50 veto referendums, upholding laws 21 times (42%) and repealing laws 29 times (58%).

In 1912, Californians voted on a statewide veto referendum for the first time. The most recent veto referendum was on the ballot in 2022.

Number of California veto referendums
Total veto referendums	Laws upheld	Laws repealed	Year of last measure
50	21	29	2022

The veto referendum ballot measure is also known as a popular referendum, people's veto, or citizen's veto. There are 23 states that have a process for veto referendums. Voters in California approved a constitutional amendment that enacted processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum in 1911.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

The state process

In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 90 days from the date the targeted bill was signed. Signatures for referendums need to be certified at least 31 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state recommends submitting signatures before the certification deadline.

The requirements to get veto referendums certified for the 2024 ballot:

• Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures
• Deadline: December 5, 2022

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the referendum is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the referendum does not make the ballot.

Details about this initiative

• The referendum was filed on September 6, 2022, by Amber Evans and Steven McDermed.
• On September 16, 2022, the initiative was cleared for signature gathering.
• On December 5, 2022, the campaign announced that it had submitted over 1 million signatures for verification.
• On January 24, the secretary of state reported that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. The final random sample count found that at least 712,568 signatures were valid of the 1,004,492 submitted.
• On December 29, 2023, the referendum was withdrawn from the ballot.

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the state can enforce a law while signatures for a veto referendum are being verified
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the law could not take effect during the signature verification process.
Plaintiff(s): Save Local Restaurants	Defendant(s): Katie Hagen, Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations; California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D); and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D)
Plaintiff argument: The constitutional section governing veto referendums requires the state not to enforce the law once a veto referendum is filed.	Defendant argument: The state can enforce the law up until and unless the veto referendum makes the ballot.

  Source: AP News

On December 29, 2022, Save Local Restaurants filed a lawsuit against Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations Katie Hagen, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D); and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) asking the court to stop the state from enforcing the law until the signature verification process is complete for the petition. While both the campaign and state agree the bill would be suspended ahead of the election on Nov. 5, 2024, the campaign says the bill was suspended upon signature submission and the state says the bill wouldn’t be suspended until and unless enough signatures are verified.

Lawyers for the PAC cited the constitutional amendment from 1911, which created the referendum process, as saying “... no such act or section or part of such act shall go into effect until and unless approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.” This constitutional language was repealed and replaced in 1966 when voters approved Proposition 1A.

The California Constitution now says, “If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute, the remainder of the statute shall not be delayed from going into effect.” The lawsuit stated that a logical extension of this requirement is that when referendum petitions are filed against an entire statute, the entire statute is delayed from going into effect, and “referendum petition is filed” refers to filing signatures. The lawsuit cites a 2020 stipulated agreement between Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and petitioners behind a flavored tobacco ban referendum. That agreement said the flavored tobacco ban legislation would not take effect on Jan. 1, 2021, while signatures were being verified.

Katie Hagen, director of the California Industrial Relations Department, said there is an “absence of clear authority providing that AB 257 is suspended merely upon submission of unverified signatures.”

On December 30, 2022, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang placed an injunction on the bill ahead of a hearing on January 13.

On January 13, 2023, Judge Chang granted a preliminary injunction keeping the bill from taking effect until the petition is verified by the state. Judge Change wrote, "The harm to the California citizens and electors ... is great given the Court's duty to 'jealously guard' the people's right to referendum and the confusion that would occur if AB257 were temporarily implemented while signatures were verified."

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

Poll times All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registration automatically registers voters when they turn 18. On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license. Automatic registration California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration See also: Online voter registration California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration California allows same-day voter registration. Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. Verifying your registration The site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements California does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. The following list of accepted ID was current as of March 2023. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information. “ Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency. ”

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Minimum wage on the ballot
• Business regulation on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

California

• California ballot measures
• California initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Full text