Business
California fast-food workers form a unique union in a bid for higher wages, better working conditions
Mysheka Ronquillo works as a cashier and cook at a Carl’s Jr. in Long Beach, earning $16 an hour. She’s looking forward to a raise to $20 an hour in April, thanks to a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last fall.
The higher wages will help her pay for school for her 19-year-old daughter, but keeping up with her bills still will be hard because of an unstable schedule that has her working 30 hours some weeks and 24 hours other weeks, she said.
“Gas isn’t going down, rent isn’t going down,” said Ronquillo, 41, who joined an estimated 350 other fast-food workers at a rally at a Watts community center to inaugurate the state’s newest labor organization, the California Fast Food Workers Union.
The union is a unique effort that will pave the way for more than half a million workers at fast-food chains across the state to bargain as a single sector — and could chart a course for other industries across the United States.
Backed by the powerful Service Employees International Union, the California Fast Food Workers Union is the culmination of years of employee walkouts over issues including the handling of sexual harassment claims, wage theft, safety and pay, such as the Fight for $15 movement to increase the minimum wage, organized by SEIU in 2012.
“Led by Black and Latino cooks and cashiers, the California Fast Food Workers Union is setting a shining example of what is possible,” SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry said in announcing the union Friday.
The union outlined three priorities: annual wage increases, just-cause protections to prevent employers from arbitrarily firing workers, and ensuring workers have predictable and sustainable schedules, without major changes to their hours.
The new organization isn’t a traditional union, instead using the model of a so-called minority union that allows workers to avoid the arduous process of organizing restaurant by restaurant through a formal election process certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
“This is a novel approach to organizing workers who have previously not been in unions,” said Kent Wong, director of the UCLA Labor Center.
Such organizing picked up steam during the pandemic, when essential workers were “on the one hand celebrated as essential workers … but in reality making poverty wages and not being truly respected on the job,” Wong said.
Union pushes at Starbucks, Amazon and Trader Joe’s and organizing among Uber and Lyft drivers are just a few examples, he said. All of the workplace-by-workplace organizing efforts have been slowed by corporate opposition.
The fast-food union shows the evolution of these campaigns and could serve as a model for nonunion workers in other industries besides fast food, he said.
Traditional union organizing at fast-food restaurants has been exceedingly difficult because of the industry’s fractured nature. Often, restaurants are not owned by a familiar brand’s parent corporation but rather operated as franchises.
And even when one company is the owner, such as the case with Starbucks, workers at individual locations frequently must unionize and bargain with the corporation separately.
The new fast-food worker union won’t have the legal strength to compel companies that employ their members to sit down and bargain because it is not certified by the NLRB.
But the new union aims to build on Assembly Bill 1228, or the Fast Recovery Act, signed by Newsom in the fall. It established a $20-an-hour minimum wage starting in April and created a council to set standards for wages and workplace conditions at fast-food chains with 60 or more locations.
The Fast Recovery Act provides annual wage increases of up to 3.5% during the first three-year cycle of the Fast Food Council. The California Fast Food Workers Union will be a vehicle for workers to set the agenda for their participation in the council, which will be made up of workers, labor advocates, corporate representatives and franchisees.
The council has limited purview; for example it does not have the authority to regulate paid sick leave, vacation or predictable scheduling at franchisees.
The California Fast Food Workers Union will lobby for local ordinances to fill in the gaps where the new statewide council may not have authority, SEIU leaders said. Workers who join the union will pay $20 in monthly membership dues, SEIU spokesperson Isabel Urbano said.
Henry said in an interview that she believes the new union’s plan to push local ordinances and lobby the fast-food council are steps toward making predictable scheduling and other issues statewide standards.
“This is a vehicle to make things much bigger for many more workers all at once,” she said.
City Councilmembers Hugo-Soto Martinez in Los Angeles and Peter Ortiz in San Jose last year began drafting ordinances to strengthen protections for fast-food workers. SEIU said Friday that the new union will call on officials to commit to passing those Fast Food Fair Work ordinances outlining paid time off provisions, predictive scheduling tools and mandatory “know your rights” training for workers.
Henry, the SEIU president, said that she sees the creation of the fast-food union as a major turning point. Four years after the union started its Fight for $15 campaign in 2012, many cities as well as the states of California and New York had made it law.
“I remember people ridiculing and scoffing at the demand for $15,” she said. “When there’s a spark and something more becomes possible, then more people want to join it.
“More change is going to help people think, ‘This wasn’t a crazy idea after all.’”
Business
Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
Business
Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
Business
Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers
Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.
If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.
Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.
As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.
Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.
“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”
The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.
The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.
While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.
The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.
In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.
The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.
“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”
The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”
While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.
“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”
The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.
As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.
Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.
Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”
While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.
“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”
Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.
Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.
“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”
-
New Mexico3 minutes agoDeb Haaland Wins New Mexico Democratic Primary For Governor
-
North Carolina10 minutes agoGreenville Police Department Join Effort Promoting Safe Firearm Storage
-
North Dakota13 minutes agoToday in History, 1971: Rugby repeats as North Dakota sand greens golf champion
-
Ohio18 minutes agoU20 World Team decided at U20 World Team Trials in Geneva, Ohio – WIN Magazine
-
Oklahoma25 minutes agoOklahoma data center boom sparks backlash as Yukon leaders, residents raise concerns
-
Oregon28 minutes agoTimeline video traces SB 1008’s impact on Oregon juvenile justice, viewers can watch now
-
Pennsylvania33 minutes ago1 dead, 2 hospitalized after crash in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, police say
-
Rhode Island40 minutes ago
RIIL title-game spots were on the line Tuesday. Here’s who earned them.