Fast food workers in California want franchise businesses tied more to brands

When you pass a McDonald's you might assume it's operated by the global mega-corporation. But in many cases, it's a franchise owned and run as a small business.

This model has been a pathway for entrepreneurs — many of whom are women, immigrants and minorities — to build wealth and become upwardly mobile. But it has also left workers in one of America's largest industries with little formal recourse for poor wages or unsafe work conditions.

Fast-food workers at stores scattered across California plan to walk off the job Nov. 9 and rally outside McDonald's locations in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland and Sacramento in a push to expand legal liability beyond individual franchisees to their corporate franchisers and to protest workplace health and safety conditions.

The protests aim to pressure state lawmakers to support AB 257, a proposed law that would establish a statewide Fast Food Sector Council made up of workers, corporate representatives, franchisees and state officials that would meet every three years to negotiate industry standards on wages, work hours and other conditions for fast-food workers.

The bill would hold fast-food corporations responsible for ensuring their franchisees comply with a variety of employment and public health and safety orders, including those related to unfair business practices, employment discrimination, the California Retail Food Code, as well as new standards issued by the council. The bill would make franchisee violations of employment laws enforceable against franchiser and franchisee equally.

The planned action comes during a burst of protests and strikes this fall as workers push for better workplace conditions and wages. The coronavirus pandemic has given many blue-collar workers new frustration and visibility as they continue to operate in often grueling, lower-paying jobs.

The fractured nature of the franchise arrangement — in which an establishment owned as a small business pays royalties and is contractually bound to its corporate franchiser — means that although a corporation holds the reins regarding how the store operates, it can abdicate responsibility for wages and working conditions.

That has led to numerous fast-food walkouts over the years, on issues including the handling of sexual harassment claims, wage theft, safety and pay, such as the "Fight for $15" movement, organized by the Service Employees International Union.

This week, McDonald's workers in some cities in the Midwest and on the East Coast protested what they say is continued sexual harassment of employees. The walkout was prompted by a lawsuit filed against McDonald's and a franchise in Pittsburgh alleging negligence after a manager at the location was accused of raping a 14-year-old worker.

"This is not a group of workers who are suddenly becoming aware that they're underappreciated or underpaid. I would say they've led other workers," said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, who authored AB 257.

The walkouts raise awareness but don't necessarily halt operations. Often workers are afraid to speak up, fearing retaliation, said Crystal Orozco, who works as a shift supervisor at a Jack in the Box in Folsom, Calif. Orozco said that for three years she worked the graveyard shift from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. five days a week without allocated breaks.

"They would expect us to take breaks in between cars [ordering at the drive-through], and we would not punch out or get penalty pay for that," Orozco said.

Fast-food workers are more likely to be women, Latino or low-wage earners. California's fast-food workforce is nearly 80% people of color and more than 60% Latino, according to a report prepared by labor researchers at UCLA and UC Berkeley. The same study found that two-thirds of California's fast-food workers rely on safety net programs to support their families.

AB 257, dubbed the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, failed a June floor vote in the Assembly, having fallen two votes short. Shortly after, the bill was approved to be taken up again by the Assembly in January.