Connect with us

California

Here's what we learned about California's wage increase after one quarter

Published

on

Here's what we learned about California's wage increase after one quarter


The second quarter was an important litmus test for restaurant operators with a footprint in California, as it marked the first reporting period following the state’s implementation of AB 1228 on April 1. The law raised the minimum wage at quick-service restaurants to $20 an hour, or by 25%.

The legislation initially raised some hell in the industry, to put things lightly. Some companies blamed the hike for layoffs, others for closures. Some operators vowed not to include California in their expansion plans. For public companies, however, the reaction has been a bit more measured. In summary, it’s full speed ahead in California, a state that is experiencing population growth for the first time in three years. But, it’s full speed ahead with significant price increases to offset the labor inflation, and those price increases have impacted traffic at many, if not most, concepts. According to Revenue Management Solutions, traffic in California has declined by 5.9% since January versus the U.S. average of negative 3.6%.

RMS’ data finds that menu prices in California have risen over four percentage points more than the U.S. average since January, or 7.5% compared to 3.1%. Domino’s, Shake Shack, and Chipotle are three such companies that took high-single-digital pricing increases in the state following the implementation of AB 1228.

Advertisement

Labor optimization

In addition to taking pricing, several chains are sharpening their focus on “labor optimization” to offset wage inflation. California-based The Habit Burger Grill is one of them.

“… A comprehensive store level labor optimization effort … contributed to an impressive 520 basis point expansion of restaurant level margins from the first quarter, despite a double-digit increase in restaurant level labor rates in California stores,” David Gibbs, CEO of parent company Yum Brands, said during his company’s earnings call earlier this month.

El Pollo Loco, which has a massive footprint in California, is exploring “labor productivity initiatives,” like deployment and scheduling, in addition to increased menu prices. CFO Ira Fils said traffic in California was “a little more” down compared to other markets, but overall, “we didn’t see a whole lot of difference between the markets.”

Sweetgreen is also making improvements to its labor optimization, according to CFO Mitch Reback, while Portillo’s is testing kiosks in the California market.

Advertisement

QSRs hit

Of course, QSRs have beared the brunt of this inflation and executives acknowledged as much during their respective Q2 calls. McDonald’s chief financial officer Ian Borden simply called wage pressures in California “a headwind we’re working through,” adding that margins could be “down a little bit” from 2023 accordingly, but still good considering the “overall context of what we’re working through.” McDonald’s experienced its first negative same-store sales quarter since 2020.

As for Wendy’s, CEO Kirk Tanner called California “unfortunate from a wage and labor standpoint,” adding that the company is focused on “driving more productivity.”

“If you look at where consumers are, our focus is on winning and competing well in this environment. And we’re doing that with that strategy, including places like California. It goes to delivering our core, having compelling innovation and having relevant value,” Tanner said. Wendy’s sales were essentially flat in Q2.

Jack in the Box felt a swift impact, with labor costs up 200 basis points from the prior year, while franchise-level margin was $74.6 million, compared to $75.3 million a year ago. CEO Darin Harris said the chain will “regain” its margin through improved sales, and “ongoing equipment, technology, and financial fundamentals initiatives.” The chain has adopted a new oil management process, for instance, and is in the process of testing a fryer automation system, while its sister chain, Del Taco, is testing kiosks. Jack in the Box also worked with its franchisees to take a “surgical approach” to pricing. Despite the early hit on margins and sales, executives remain optimistic about California.

Advertisement

“California fared substantially better than we thought,” CEO Darin Harris said.

“This was the first full quarter of operating under the increased minimum wage law and we are proud of how our teams executed through this change,” CFO Brian Scott said. “[For] Jack in the Box company-owned restaurants, which are predominantly in California, same-store sales performance was better than all but one market. Del Taco had a similar result, with California being one of their top markets in the quarter.”

Full-service insulated?

Despite the law only applying to QSRs, full-service wasn’t completely insulated. Consider Kura Sushi as an example here. The company’s second quarter performance fell well short of expectations, with chief executive officer Hajime Jimmy Uba citing AB 1228 as a main culprit given that comparable same-store sales decelerated in California in April.

“What we have seen … is a general perception that restaurants as a category have become expensive, introducing industry-wide pressures regardless of a given restaurant’s relative value,” he said.

Advertisement

Still, many full-service concepts have experienced no change at all, or even a small tailwind from the QSR-focused legislation. For example, Texas Roadhouse’s handful of California stores are doing “fine,” according to executives.

BJ’s Restaurants, which is headquartered in Huntington Beach, Calif., also hasn’t seen changing trends from its consumers, perhaps because gas prices have come down, according to chief financial officer Tom Houdek. BJ’s executives made it a point to also note that labor levels haven’t been impacted by higher wages at QSRs and that the company is “in a better place” than in 2019 with staffing. That said, Houdek called the statewide pricing increases a “sticker shock” for consumers.

Denny’s has leaned into a silver lining from California’s wage increases, expanding its virtual Banda Burrito brand to over 300 restaurants with a priority on the state to add the revenue channel. CEO Kelli Valade said traffic outperformed QSRs during the quarter because of lower menu prices relative to QSRs, as well as the expansion of Banda Burrito. Notably, Denny’s is also targeting California as one of its growth markets for its Keke’s brand.

“We have not experienced a material increase in team wages at our 22 California company restaurants as a result of AB 1228. We believe this is in part due to our servers earning well above the AB 1228 minimum wage when factoring in tip income,” CFO Robert Verostek said, adding,The [market share] gap we were experiencing to overall QSR, we’ve cut in half in California specifically.”

Cheesecake Factory is also seeing consistency across its geographies with no added pressure from California. CEO David Overton said the legislation mostly impacts QSRs, “which is positive for us.”

Advertisement

Notably, full-service brands aren’t the only ones with optimism. Wingstop had a meteoric second quarter relative to the rest of the industry, AB 1228 be damned. Wingstop did not experience transaction changes after implementing pricing increases to offset wage increases at its 400-ish California locations.

“In fact, the trends in California are following a very similar trend to what we see outside of California for our business,” CFO Alex Kaleida said.

Further, Dutch Bros experienced a 60-basis-point year-over-year increase in labor costs primarily driven by the wage increase in California, where about 20% of its system is located. The company took a 1.5% pricing increase to help offset the pressure but has otherwise been focused on business as usual.

“We had two of our top first week performers in California in the first half of this year,” CEO Christine Barone said. “We continue to be very bullish on our prospects in California and continue to look for sites and opening shops in California.”

Contact Alicia Kelso at [email protected]

Advertisement

 



Source link

California

Live Updates: Candidates face off in the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate

Published

on

Live Updates: Candidates face off in the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate


 

Learn more about candidates’ stances on the issues in the California Governor’s Race interactive guide

CBS News California launched an interactive tool to help voters navigate this year’s gubernatorial race. The California Governor’s Race Candidate Guide features 20 hours of interviews with top-polling candidates to provide voters the opportunity to compare each candidate’s responses side-by-side on the issues that matter most to them.

Those running to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom as California’s next chief executive offered their thoughts on more than a dozen issues, including homelessness, housing affordability, gas prices and environmental policy, immigration, healthcare, crime and public safety funding, and the state’s ongoing insurance crisis.

Advertisement
 

Here’s what to know about the CBS News California/San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate format

The format of the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate on Thursday will allow candidates to question each other directly. 

Advertisement

Candidates will also participate in segments in which they address real-world issues California voters may face in their daily lives. The Californians who will be featured include a working single mother pursuing education; a couple struggling to achieve homeownership; and a scientist warning of the long-term consequences of inaction on climate change.

This structure for Thursday’s debate differs from the previous face-off hosted by CBS News California stations, which comprised three segments focused on affordability, accountability and social issues that lasted roughly half an hour each.

 
Advertisement

Becerra, Hilton, Steyer lead field in latest polling on California governor’s race

An Emerson College poll released the day before the CBS News California and San Francisco Examiner Governor’s Debate showed Xavier Becerra leading the field with likely voters surveyed at 19%, followed by Steve Hilton and Tom Steyer both receiving 17%. Chad Bianco came in at 11%, followed by Katie Porter at 10%, Matt Mahan at 8%, Antonio Villaraigosa at 4% and Tony Thurmond at 1%. Twelve percent said they remained undecided.

In a CBS News/YouGov poll last month conducted before the April 28 CBS California Governor’s Debate, Hilton received support from 16% of likely voters polled, with Steyer and Becerra following at 15% and 13% respectively. Bianco came in at 10%, Porter received 9%, Matt Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa both received 4%, and Tony Thurmond received 1%. The survey also found that a significant 26% of those polled were undecided.

California’s June 2 primary is an open primary where the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to face off in the November general election. 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Opinion | California will make less money from greenhouse gas emission auctions

Published

on

Opinion | California will make less money from greenhouse gas emission auctions


By Dan Walters, CalMatters

The Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington, on Sept. 30, 2025. Photo by Stella Kalinina for CalMatters

This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Two decades ago, when California got serious about reducing or even eliminating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, its political leaders weighed two potential tactics about industrial emissions.

Advertisement

The state could impose direct facility-by-facility limits, generally favored by climate change advocates. Or it could set overall emission reduction goals that would gradually decrease and auction off emission allowances, assuming their costs would encourage reductions.

The latter, known as cap-and-trade, was favored by corporate interests as being less onerous and was adopted, finally taking effect in 2012.

Since then, the California Air Resources Board has conducted quarterly auctions of emission allowances, collecting a total of $35 billion dollars so far, which, in theory, is being spent on projects that would reduce emissions.

The revenues have varied from year to year, but they have generally increased as the emission caps have declined. Since reaching a peak of $8.1 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, however, auction proceeds have been declining.

Roughly half of the money has been given to utilities to minimize cap-and-trade’s impact on consumer costs. However, the program has been widely criticized as a de facto tax on gasoline and other fuels, which were already among the most expensive of any state.

Advertisement

The remaining revenues have been deposited into a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that governors and legislators have tapped for various purposes, not all of them connected to emission reductions. In a sense, it’s been a slush fund.

Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature overhauled the program in two bills, Senate Bill 840 and Assembly Bill 1207. The program was extended, it was renamed as cap-and-invest and new priorities for spending auction proceeds were set.

Notably, the state’s cash-strapped and long-stalled bullet train project would get a flat $1 billion a year, rather than the 25% share it had been getting. Project managers hope that lenders will advance enough money to complete its first leg in the San Joacim Valley; the plan is to repay the loans from the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest allocation.

Early this year, the Air Resources Board released new regulations to implement the legislative changes but faced criticism that they would increase consumer costs. That led to a revision in April that softens the rules’ impact — most obviously on refiners who have been threatening to leave California — but environmental groups are very critical.

The April version would also sharply reduce net revenues from emission auctions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, providing barely enough for the $1 billion allocation to the bullet train and another $1 billion for the governor and Legislature to spend. Other programs that have been receiving cap-and-invest support, such as wildfire protection and housing, would probably get nothing.

Advertisement

The program has been tapped in recent years to backfill programs that a deficit-ridden state budget could not cover, so the projected revenue drop would exacerbate efforts by Newsom and legislators to close the state budget’s yawning gap.

“The (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) is a relatively small portion of the overall state budget, but it has been a noteworthy source of funding for environmental and other programs in recent years,” the state Assembly’s budget advisor, Jason Sisney, says in an email. “Collapse of its revenues would change the state budget process noticeably. The state’s cost-pressured general fund seemingly would be unable to make up much, if any, of a significant (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) revenue decline at this time.”

When Newsom presents his revised budget this week, he may reveal how he intends to cover the cap-and-invest program’s shortfall, particularly whether he will maintain the $1 billion bullet train commitment that project leaders say is vital to continuing construction of its Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.

It could boil down to bullet train vs. wildfire protection.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Trump administration will defer $1.3B in Medicaid funds for CA

Published

on

Trump administration will defer .3B in Medicaid funds for CA


play

Vice President JD Vance announced on Wednesday, May 13 that the Trump administration will be deferring $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from the state of California, as part of a new initiative to root out fraud in federal health programs.

The topic of California’s hospice care fraud has been a major focus of scrutiny by state leadership, members of President Donald Trump’s administration, and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s critics. In his announcement, Vance claimed that the administration was set on deferring these funds “because the state of California has not taken fraud very seriously.”

Advertisement

“There are California taxpayers and American taxpayers who are being defrauded because California isn’t taking its program seriously,” Vance said during a press conference.

Notably, this decision was part of Vance’s Anti-Fraud Task Force’s plan to implement a six-month nationwide, data-driven moratorium on new Medicare enrollment for hospices and home health agencies.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is led by Dr. Mehmet Oz, is set to use this six-month moratorium to conduct investigations and review data on Medicare programs, with the hopes of removing hospice and home health agencies that are suspected of committing fraud.

“Today we’re shutting the door on fraud — preventing new bad actors from entering Medicare while we aggressively identify, investigate, and remove those already exploiting them,” Oz said. “This is about protecting patients, restoring integrity, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the administration’s action “unlawful” and noted that his office would be “carefully reviewing all available information” and may challenge the administration’s decision to threaten “Californians’ rights or access to critical services.”

“Once again, California appears to be targeted solely for political reasons,” Bonta said on X.

“The Trump Administration is planning to defer over $1 billion in Medicaid funding for vital programs that help seniors and people with disabilities remain safely in their homes.”

Bonta and his office have attempted to counteract criticism that the state does not take action against hospice fraud.

Advertisement

In April, Bonta announced that the California Department of Justice had arrested five people in connection with a major health care scheme in Southern California that defrauded taxpayers of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

“For years, California has led the charge to protect public programs from fraud and abuse,” Newsom said in the press release on April 10. “We hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law anyone who tries to rip off taxpayers and take advantage of public programs, particularly those as sensitive as hospice care.”

Newsom has yet to publicly respond to the administration’s decision to defer California’s Medicaid reimbursement.

However, shortly after Vance made the announcement, Newsom’s press office blasted the decision on X.

Advertisement

“We hate fraud. But that’s NOT what this is,” Newsom’s press office posted on X. “Vance and Oz are attacking programs that keep seniors and people with disabilities OUT of nursing homes. Pretty sick.”

Noe Padilla is a Northern California Reporter for USA Today. Contact him at npadilla@usatodayco.com, follow him on X @1NoePadilla or on Bluesky @noepadilla.bsky.socialSign up for the TODAY Californian newsletter or follow us on Facebook at TODAY Californian.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending