The Brief

A two-year battle between labor groups and fast food giants is culminating in a last-minute deal announced today that would give workers a $20 minimum wage starting next April if businesses agree to nix their November 2024 ballot measure to undo a landmark law regulating the industry.

The agreement, detailed in changes to Assembly Bill 1228, averts what would have been a costly campaign for both sides. And they each get a major concession: It ensures at least a modest raise for workers, while the industry gets lawmakers to back off on a controversial proposal to hold fast food corporations legally responsible for labor violations in their franchise locations.

The 2022 law would have established a state-run council with worker and business representatives to write rules regulating wages and working conditions in fast food restaurants — an industry labor organizers have long struggled to unionize. The council would have had the power to raise the fast food minimum wage to as much as $22 an hour. The statewide minimum wage rises to $16 on Jan. 1.

The law was quickly put on hold last fall when restaurant groups and major fast food corporations poured millions into a signature-gathering campaign to have voters repeal it on the 2024 ballot.

The referendum campaign in July reported amassing $50 million in an “initial contribution” from McDonald’s, In-N-Out, Chick-Fil-A and the International Franchise Association and National Restaurant Association.

The Service Employees International Union, sponsor of the law, and other labor groups said the fast food industry, which employs more than 500,000 Californians, is in particular need of regulation because of low wages, unpredictable scheduling and what they said were harsh working conditions in restaurants often controlled not by the corporations but by numerous independent franchise operators.

“For the last decade, fast-food cooks, cashiers and baristas in California have been sounding the alarm on the poverty pay and unsafe working conditions plaguing our industry,” Ingrid Vilorio, a leader in union efforts to organize fast food workers, said in a statement. “We have always known that to solve these problems, we need a seat at the table with our employers and the power to help shape better rules across our industry.”

Businesses have painted the law as an overreach, countering that restaurants have already raised wages during a period of record inflation, and said additional regulations would force fast food stores to close or hike prices. Last December, the average hourly wage of California fast food workers was about $19.

In response to the referendum, SEIU and a furious Assemblymember Chris Holden, the Pasadena Democrat who authored the fast food council law, this year introduced AB 1228, the bill to establish joint labor law liability for corporations. That provision was stripped out of the law in 2022 to gain more support for its passage.

Also, this year’s state budget included a $3 million line item to resurrect the Industrial Welfare Commission, a state board dormant since 2004 that could also write new, industry-specific regulations. Over the weekend, lawmakers in another budget bill proposed calling off that commission’s revival.

The deal, which has days to be approved before the legislative session ends Thursday, would require the fast food council convene and meet for the first time by March 15, 2024 — earlier than it would have if it had to await voter approval next November.

“It provides meaningful wage increases for workers, while at the same time eliminates more significant – and potentially existential – threats, costs, and regulatory burdens targeting local restaurants in California,” International Franchise Association president and CEO Matt Haller said in a statement.

The agreement also tweaks the council’s 10-member makeup to nine by making the two state government representatives non-voting members and adding a “member of the public.” The council would still include two fast food workers, two labor representatives, two fast food industry representatives and two fast food franchise owners.

The newly proposed council also would write rules that apply to more restaurants — those that belong to a chain with at least 60 locations nationally, compared with 100 locations as outlined in the 2022 law. The deal also removes a provision by which cities and counties could convene their own fast food councils, which businesses had said could create a burdensome number of additional regulations.

As previously enacted, the council would operate for five years unless lawmakers extend it. And it has the same restrictions as the version passed last year — limited to rulemaking on wages and workplace safety, though the council would have to petition the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health to enact some of those rules. It would not be able to write rules that create new time-off benefits or dictate how restaurants schedule workers’ hours.

The fast food industry and unions were in a crunch to reach an agreement by tonight, the absolute last chance for bills to be amended this session because of a requirement they be in print for 72 hours before a final vote. The Legislature now must waive other deadline rules to bring the measure to the floor for consideration.

The deal is only possible because of a brand-new law signed on Friday by Newsom. AB 421 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat, creates a process for proponents of a referendum to withdraw their measure from the ballot until 131 days before the election. Such a process already existed for other statewide initiatives, but not for efforts to overturn a law passed through the legislative process.

The Legislature rushed the bill through a final series of votes last Tuesday and sent it to the governor’s desk with an urgency clause allowing it to take effect immediately. That means, for the November 2024 election, referendums can be pulled off the ballot until June 27 — potentially opening the door for another deal next session with the oil industry over a referendum they qualified challenging a 3,200-foot drilling setback around homes, schools and health care facilities.

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.