Corporations Fight California’s Ballot Box Decisions
The guy waving his clipboard pushed his way right into the middle of a group of shoppers headed into Target. It’s not unusual to see petitioners at that location. They’ll say anything to get your signature, and most folks ignore them.
A woman raised her voice and said “Wait! You want to lower the minimum wage?” and I took notice. What the hell?
On my way out, paper goods in hand, the guy was playing a different tune, pitching an increase in the minimum wage. Wow. Talk about desperation!
Then I saw this item in Politico, and it all made sense:
Opponents of California’s new fast food labor law have quickly built a war chest as they race to qualify a referendum overturning AB 257. The “Save Local Restaurants” committee has piled up $12.6 million, including enormous sums from franchise industry heavyweights like Starbucks ($2 million), In-n-Out ($1.7 million), Chipotle ($1.7 million), Yum! Brands ($750,000) and Chik-Fil-A ($500,000). They have until early December to gather about 620,000 valid signatures.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: don’t sign electoral petitions offered by strangers on the street.
The designation “Save Local Restaurants” is in itself an indication of the misinformation the fast food industry will use to stymie a law expressly focused on chains in California with at least 100 stores nationwide.
The goal of those chains backing this referendum is to –at a minimum– stall implementation of the law because they fear other states will follow California’s example. Their ideal scenario will involve creating a propaganda effort obscuring corporate responsibility for mandating conditions leaving franchisees little choice but to exploit their workers.
AB 257, which was seriously weakened by 90 last minute amendments, aims to address complaints by the 550,000 fast food workers in the state grappling with low and stolen wages, unsafe workplaces, and rampant sexual harassment.
Via Vox:
The vast majority of fast food workers in California are women and people of color, and many report similar experiences as Hernandez. In one survey of California fast food workers, released in May by the Fight for $15, 85 percent said they experienced wage theft on the job.
Another recent survey, commissioned by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and conducted by the UCLA Labor Center, found 43 percent of workers experienced workplace injury or illness, nearly half experienced verbal abuse, and a quarter said they were retaliated against by their managers for reporting workplace issues.
***
Cough, Cough. In the upcoming election, we’re being asked to uphold a state law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, with exceptions for hookah tobacco, loose leaf tobacco, and premium cigars..
Despite $9.5 million in funding from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and $9.3 million from Philip Morris USA, the backers of this referendum know they’re going to lose. (BTW–Vote “Yes” to keep the law in place.)
The law was meant to take effect in 2021 but was held up due to the referendum qualifying for the November 2022 ballot.
Get this: one of the arguments against upholding the ban is the reduction of public monies going toward mitigating tobacco-based health hazards. Think about that for a second.
***
Betcha can’t pick just one. There’s good news today about the dueling sports betting propositions (26 & 27) appearing on the general election ballot: they’re both going to lose, according to recent polls..
It’s not that I’m against gambling. I’m against bullshit campaigns that are about profits. And I’m glad California voters are seeing through the misleading ads.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Proposition 26 would allow in-person sports betting at tribal casinos and horse racing tracks. It earned only 31% support from likely voters, compared with 42% opposed, according to the Berkeley survey of 6,939 likely California voters.
Proposition 27, which would allow online sports wagering, fared even worse — 27% of likely voters in support and 53% opposed.
Backers of the measures have inundated voters with ads and blown away previous state campaign spending records in the process, but they faced an uphill battle from the start. A Berkeley IGS poll taken in February showed Californians were open to the idea of legal sports betting, but the presence of two competing initiatives often makes it more difficult for either to pass, DiCamillo said.
***
Thou shall not lie. Although Churches aren’t technically corporations, CalMatter’s story about the role being played by religious groups in opposition to Proposition 1 is certainly noteworthy.
About a month before Election Day, as mail ballots are set to begin arriving at the homes of every registered voter in California, officials across several major denominations are tapping into their networks of worshippers to get the word out against the abortion measure. Meanwhile, some conservative faith-based political groups are organizing voters to involve their churches in the campaign. Though not legally allowed to endorse partisan candidates because of their tax-exempt status, churches can advocate on issues, including ballot measures.
The most significant push so far has come from the Catholic Church. Over the summer, it started training clergy and parishioners, registering voters and developing educational resources about Prop. 1, which it calls the “most egregious expansion of abortion this country has ever seen.”
What the effort against Proposition 1 has in common with corporate campaigns is that it fosters a misrepresentation designed to provoke an emotional response. In the case of the abortion measure, ads featuring a trash can next to an operating table are supposed to drive home the notion that late term procedures will flourish.
****
Finally, a note on a corporate-sponsored court case due to be argued in front of the Supreme Court next week.
The case is National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. Pork producers are challenging a ballot initiative California voters adopted with 63% approval in 2018 setting conditions for raising hogs, veal calves and egg-laying chickens, whose meat or eggs are sold in California.
While egg producers and veal farmers have mostly adopted these standards, corporate hog farming operations are arguing in favor of “gestation crates” for pregnant sows measuring 2 feet by 7 feet – enough room for the animals to sit, stand and lie down, but not enough to turn around.
California will require sows to have at least 24 square feet of floor space – nearly double the amount that most now get. It does not require farmers to raise free-range pigs, just to provide more square feet when they keep hogs in buildings.
If the state wins, others with progressive animal welfare policies will be able to effectively set national standards for the well-being of many agricultural animals, including chickens, dairy and cattle.
***
Email me at: WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
Lead image from Democracy Docket