SEIU responds to reporting on its use of NDAs in California’s fast food law negotiations
KCRA 3 first reported last week that SEIU required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law.
ALERTS FOR THE LATEST NOTIFICATIONS. CALIFORNIA’S BRAND NEW FAST FOOD COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME TODAY IN OAKLAND. YEAH, THE GROUP WILL BARGAIN WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE STATE’S HALF A MILLION FAST FOOD WORKERS. THE COUNCIL IS MADE UP OF A BLEND OF LABOR AND FAST FOOD INDUSTRY LEADERS. THE GROUP DECIDED TODAY TO POST A JOB FOR AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO HELP MANAGE THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF THE COUNCIL, THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR FAST FOOD WORKERS GOES UP TO $20 AN HOUR IN APRIL, BUT THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL SAYS THERE’S MUCH MORE WORK TO DO. I THINK ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPENED TODAY WAS THAT I THINK WHAT YOU HEARD FROM EACH MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IS THAT, UM, THEY’RE HERE TO WORK. UM. UM, YOU KNOW, IT’S WE HAVE A KIND OF A UNIQUE, UM, REPRESENT STATION. YOU HAVE WORKERS WHO WORK IN ONE OF THE LOWEST WAGE INDUSTRIES IN, IN CALIFORNIA. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATIONS OF FRANCHISEE OWNERS WHO REPRESENT SMALL BUSINESSES. AND IF THERE’S ANY TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW IN THE ECONOMY, I WOULD SAY IT’S SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND IT’S WORKERS. SO I THINK, UM, WHAT. I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR WAS BOTH SIDES BEING BOTH REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH, UM, THE WORKER SIDE AND THE EMPLOYER SIDE SAYING THEY’RE READY TO GET TO WORK AND WORK TOGETHER. NOW, MEANTIME, THE LAW THAT CREATED THIS COUNCIL IS AT THE CENTER OF SCRUTINY RIGHT NOW, AS WE’VE BEEN REPORTING FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, NON-DISCO AGREEMENTS WERE USED IN THE FINAL NEGOTIATIONS OF THE LAW. THE LABOR GROUP SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, ALSO KNOWN AS SEIU, REQUIRED THEM. AND AFTER DAYS OF NOT COMMENTING ON THAT, THE GROUP FINALLY BROKE ITS SILENCE ON THE ISSUE. TODAY, THEIR SPOKESPERSON, MIKE ROTH, RELEASING A STATEMENT. AND WE’RE GOING TO READ THAT TO YOU NOW. THE STATEMENT READS, QUOTE, THIS STORY IS A NOTHING BURGER MADE OF INNUENDO AND HYPE. KCRA REPORTING REPEATEDLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND INAPPROPRIATELY FAILS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CONVERSATIONS TAKING PLACE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC PROCESS BY WHICH A BILL BECOMES A LAW. CALIFORNIA’S LANDMARK LAW LIFTING 500,000 FAST FOOD WORKERS OUT OF POVERTY AND STRENGTHENING THEIR VOICE AT WORK, WENT THROUGH A FULL, TRANSPARENT AGAIN. THEIR WORDS AND PUBLIC PROCESS, BY REQUIRED BY LAW, THE STATEMENT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE SUGGESTION THAT PRIVATE PARTIES CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES IS ABSURD AND QUOTE OUR ASHLEY ZAVALA HAS BEEN COVERING THE FAST FOOD COUNCIL MEETING THAT HAPPENED TODAY IN OAKLAND AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL IS SEIU INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BRYANT. NOW, ASHLEY WAS ABLE TO TALK TO BRIAN AND ASK ABOUT THAT STATEMENT THAT WE JUST READ IN OUR ONGOING REPORTING ON THE USE OF NDAS DURING LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATIONS HERE IS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. DO YOU THINK OUR REPORTING IS A NOTHINGBURGER? DO YOU THINK OUR REPORTING IS HYPE AND INNUENDO? I DON’T THINK YOU’VE READ THAT REPORT. IN PARTICULAR, AND THAT STATEMENT, WAS IT FROM YOU? HAVE I HAVE NOT READ THAT REPORT. OKAY. THE USE OF NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS. I MEAN, DID YOU KNOW THAT THOSE WERE USED? WE WERE AT A PLACE WHERE WE MET IN PASS IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. YES. AND WE WERE ASKED BY, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, LEADERS AT THE STATE TO SAY, HEY, FIGURE THIS OUT. AND IN THESE SPACES, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE ENTITIES THAT COME FROM VERY DIFFERENT INTERESTS, YOU KNOW, OURS, YOU KNOW, COMING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ESTABLISHING, YOU KNOW, A VOICE FOR WORKERS AT THE TABLE, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES COMING FROM THEIR THEIR PERSPECTIVE, UH, IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE CONVERSATIONS, UM, YOU KNOW. SOMETIMES IT DOES TAKE, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, STEPS TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH TRUST. THE LEGISLATION WAS PUT INTO PRINT ON SEPTEMBER 11TH. UH, IT PASSED SEPTEMBER 14TH, WHICH WAS THE FINAL DAY OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHEN STATE LAWMAKERS ARE SORTING THROUGH HUNDREDS OF BILLS. I MEAN, IS A IS A THREE DAY FAST TRACK PROCESS OF GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS? I WOULD SAY THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY LONG PROCESS. YES. AND AND, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE LAST PHASE OF THE BILL. OBVIOUSLY, THE BILL WENT THROUGH, UH, MANY OPEN HEARINGS, MANY COMMITTEE MEETINGS. UH, IT WAS DEBATE ON THE FLOOR, BOTH AT THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THERE WAS ENGAGEMENT FROM THE INDUSTRY. SO SO, YOU KNOW, FROM WHERE WE STARTED TO TO GET TO THE PLACE TO WHERE WE’RE AT OF SEPTEMBER 14TH, IT REALLY WAS A PROCESS OF MULTIPLE YEARS. WERE YOU A SIGNEE OF AN NDA IN THIS? UM, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO COMMENT. OKAY. AND COULD YOU TELL US AT LEAST THE TERMS OF THE NDA, WHAT THEY COVER AND HOW LONG THEY WERE IN, YOU KNOW, WERE SET TO BE APPLIED TO ANY OF THIS? DID THEY EXPIRE? UM, I WOULD SAY THE ONE THING AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE IT TAKES AWAY FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH. ITS YOUR ORGANIZATION’S OPINION THAT THESE WERE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS. BUT THIS IS A LAW THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE STATE. THE MEDIATORS OF THIS WERE PAID FOR ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. THE SYSTEMS IN WHICH THIS LAW WAS NEGOTIATED WERE ALSO PAID ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. WHY SHOULD NDAS BE USED IN THAT PROCESS? AND I THINK WHAT HAPPENED ABSOLUTELY BENEFITS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE ARE DEALING WITH A CRISIS IN REGARDS TO HOMELESSNESS IN THE STATE. UM. 6% OF THE, UH, OF THE FAST OR THE HOMELESS POPULATION ARE FAST FOOD WORKERS. SO SO THIS IS SOMETHING IN TERMS OF INCREASED THING THE, THE, THE INCOME OF FAST FOOD WORKERS HELPS ALL CALIFORNIANS. WE HAVE A EXORBITANT NUMBER OF FAST FOOD WORKERS WHO RELY ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. WE HAVE EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF FAST FOOD WORKERS THAT HAVE INSECURITY IN REGARDS TO THE STATE, WHETHER IT BE HOUSING, WHETHER IT BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES AND WHAT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION DID WAS HELP. CALIFORNIA WAS HELP. CALIFORNIA BY HELPING CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE FAST FOOD WORKERS, AND TO BE ABLE TO ALSO LIFT UP EVERYONE IN THE STATE. OKAY, THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY PUBLIC RECORDS SPELLING OUT HOW AND WHY CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS WERE ADDED TO THAT BILL, AND LEGAL EXPERTS AND LEGISLATORS WE’VE SPOKEN WITH TELL US THEY HAVE NOT HEARD OF OR SEEN NDAS BEING USED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, AND THEY DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S OFFICE HAS SAID NONE OF ITS STAFF SIGNED THE NDAS. IT HAS NOT SAID IF IT WAS AWARE THAT THEY WERE BEING USED AND IF IT APPROVES OF THEIR USE IN THE POLICY MAKIN
SEIU responds to reporting on its use of NDAs in California’s fast food law negotiations
KCRA 3 first reported last week that SEIU required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law.
Updated: 10:32 AM PDT Mar 16, 2024
The powerful labor group that helped lead negotiations in California’s landmark fast-food minimum wage law broke its silence for the first time Friday on its use of non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of that law. KCRA 3 first reported last week that the Service Employees International Union, also known as SEIU, required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law. The result of those negotiations was placed into a bill, AB 1228, on Sept. 11, 2023 and passed by state lawmakers on the final night of the legislative session three days later. In a statement Friday, Mike Roth, a spokesman for SEIU California said, “This story is a nothing burger made of innuendo and hype. KCRA’s reporting repeatedly, intentionally and inappropriately fails to distinguish between conversations taking place between private parties and the public process by which a bill becomes a law.”“California’s landmark law lifting 500,000 fast food workers out of poverty and strengthening their voice at work went through a full, transparent, and public process as required by law,” Roth said. “The suggestion that private parties cannot or should not have confidential discussions to resolve their differences is absurd.”Roth sent his statement as KCRA 3 has made repeated requests to interview Tia Orr, SEIU California’s leader, to answer questions about SEIU’s use of non-disclosure agreements. SEIU California released the statement halfway through the inaugural meeting of the fast-food council that was created by the law in question. The group’s representative on the council, Joseph Bryant, told KCRA 3 he was not aware of the statement or the reporting. When KCRA 3 asked if he was one of the signees of the non-disclosure agreement, Bryant would not comment. “We were at a place where we met impasse in the legislative process,” Bryant said. “We were asked by leaders at the state to say, ‘Hey figure this out.'”Bryant did not directly respond to many of KCRA 3’s questions but maintained that the law got a thorough review from lawmakers and the public. KCRA 3 learned about the use of non-disclosure agreements while trying to understand why a mysterious exemption was put into the law that exempts chains that make and sell their own bread as a stand-alone menu item. Multiple sources have said one of Gov. Newsom’s billionaire donors influenced him to push for the carveout. Those non-disclosure agreements prevent the negotiators from discussing how the exemption landed in the law. Gov. Newsom’s office has said no one in the office signed the NDAs. The office has not said if it was aware the NDAs were being used, and if it approved of their use in the policy making process. Long-time Capitol observer and McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli told KCRA 3 the use of NDAs between interest groups was surprising but not illegal.”It’s unprecedented in my mind because I’ve never heard of anyone using an NDA when it comes to legislative negotiations,” Micheli said. “I think the concern we should have is a potential lack of transparency and disclosure. Remember, the lawmaking process is being done on behalf of the people of California.”Following KCRA 3’s reporting, Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong recently introduced legislation prohibiting their use in legislative negotiations. The measure would also invalidate any laws that used them.
The powerful labor group that helped lead negotiations in California’s landmark fast-food minimum wage law broke its silence for the first time Friday on its use of non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of that law.
KCRA 3 first reported last week that the Service Employees International Union, also known as SEIU, required representatives from the fast food and franchise industry to sign non-disclosure agreements in the final negotiations of the law. The result of those negotiations was placed into a bill, AB 1228, on Sept. 11, 2023 and passed by state lawmakers on the final night of the legislative session three days later.
In a statement Friday, Mike Roth, a spokesman for SEIU California said, “This story is a nothing burger made of innuendo and hype. KCRA’s reporting repeatedly, intentionally and inappropriately fails to distinguish between conversations taking place between private parties and the public process by which a bill becomes a law.”
“California’s landmark law lifting 500,000 fast food workers out of poverty and strengthening their voice at work went through a full, transparent, and public process as required by law,” Roth said. “The suggestion that private parties cannot or should not have confidential discussions to resolve their differences is absurd.”
Roth sent his statement as KCRA 3 has made repeated requests to interview Tia Orr, SEIU California’s leader, to answer questions about SEIU’s use of non-disclosure agreements.
SEIU California released the statement halfway through the inaugural meeting of the fast-food council that was created by the law in question. The group’s representative on the council, Joseph Bryant, told KCRA 3 he was not aware of the statement or the reporting.
When KCRA 3 asked if he was one of the signees of the non-disclosure agreement, Bryant would not comment.
“We were at a place where we met impasse in the legislative process,” Bryant said. “We were asked by leaders at the state to say, ‘Hey figure this out.'”
Bryant did not directly respond to many of KCRA 3’s questions but maintained that the law got a thorough review from lawmakers and the public.
KCRA 3 learned about the use of non-disclosure agreements while trying to understand why a mysterious exemption was put into the law that exempts chains that make and sell their own bread as a stand-alone menu item. Multiple sources have said one of Gov. Newsom’s billionaire donors influenced him to push for the carveout. Those non-disclosure agreements prevent the negotiators from discussing how the exemption landed in the law.
Gov. Newsom’s office has said no one in the office signed the NDAs. The office has not said if it was aware the NDAs were being used, and if it approved of their use in the policy making process.
Long-time Capitol observer and McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli told KCRA 3 the use of NDAs between interest groups was surprising but not illegal.
“It’s unprecedented in my mind because I’ve never heard of anyone using an NDA when it comes to legislative negotiations,” Micheli said. “I think the concern we should have is a potential lack of transparency and disclosure. Remember, the lawmaking process is being done on behalf of the people of California.”
Following KCRA 3’s reporting, Republican Assemblyman Vince Fong recently introduced legislation prohibiting their use in legislative negotiations. The measure would also invalidate any laws that used them.
