Protect LA Restaurants Coalition Responds to LA City Council Action on Costly Restaurant Ordinance

Committee advances new scheduling mandates and six-hour training proposal that workers don’t want and local restaurants and the City can’t afford

Los Angeles, CA – Today, the Los Angeles City Council’s Economic Development & Jobs Committee advanced key components of the “Costly Restaurant Ordinance,” an expensive and unnecessary proposal that would impose new mandates on fast food restaurants and workers, and fast food restaurants and workers alone. The Committee took action to expand restrictive scheduling requirements to fast food restaurants and directing City staff to develop an implementation plan for a new six-hour, in-person, off-site training program for fast food workers.

The action comes despite growing concerns from both fast food workers who would be subject to the new requirements and local franchisees who would be forced to implement and pay for them.

“The City is asking restaurants to pay for another costly mandate that workers themselves overwhelmingly oppose,” said Nareh S., Los Angeles restaurant owner. “It’s hard to understand why restaurants are being singled out to shoulder another expense for a program employees don’t even want. This ordinance is unnecessary, unfair, and comes at the worst possible time for local small businesses.”

A new survey of 1,246 randomly selected Los Angeles fast food workers conducted by Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy, in conjunction with Beacon Economics, found that more than 70% oppose the proposed six-hour, off-site, in-person training administered by a third-party organization. Instead, 76.5% prefer online training they can complete at their own pace, while 67% believe training should last no more than three hours.

Workers also expressed significant concerns about the proposal’s privacy implications. Nearly 75% are concerned about providing their personal contact information to outside organizations as part of the proposed training requirement. And when asked who they trust to provide accurate, unbiased information, 53.3% selected their employer and another 26.2% selected an employer-chosen trainer, compared with just 4.3% who selected an outside organization.

“I do not want to be forced to share my personal information with an outside organization to complete the mandatory training,” said Edgar M., Los Angeles fast food worker. “Workers and our families still live in fear of the federal raids going on. The last thing I want is a City requirement that makes me hand over my personal information to people I don’t even know.” 

The proposal would also impose significant new costs on local restaurants already facing rising labor and operating expenses. Oxford Economics estimates the Ordinance would cost each restaurant an additional $48,312 to $96,624 annually.

The City has also raised concerns about its ability to absorb the additional workload. During today’s hearing, the City’s Office of Wage Standards said it would be “difficult to absorb the full scope” of the proposal, noting that recent budget cuts have already made it challenging to meet the demands of its existing workload. The Committee has requested additional information on the personnel and budgetary resources that would be necessary to implement and enforce the proposal.

Los Angeles is home to more than 1,500 quick-service restaurants, the overwhelming majority of which are independently owned small businesses operated by people of color, immigrants and women. Since California’s $20/hour fast food minimum wage took effect, more than 1,150 restaurants have shut down across the City of Los Angeles, with owners citing the wage mandate and rising operating costs as key factors.

The Ordinance would: 

• Mandate new rigid scheduling requirements that limit employee flexibility.
• Require restaurants to send employees off-site to complete unnecessary and duplicative training that workers overwhelmingly oppose.
• Jeopardize employee privacy.

The full Los Angeles City Council must approve the Committee’s recommendations before they can move forward, with Council consideration expected in the coming weeks.