Jot Condie joined the California Restaurant Association (CRA) in May of 1999 as the association’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, serving as the restaurant industry’s chief lobbyist in California.
He was promoted to the position of president and chief executive officer in 2004.
Prior to joining CRA, Condie was the legislative director for the California Manufacturers Association, where he lobbied on behalf of California’s Fortune 500 companies.
He also served as the chief lobbyist for the Southern California Air Quality Alliance, a consortium of aerospace, manufacturing and high-tech companies with an interest in air quality regulation issues.
Condie’s resume includes work in the State Capitol as staff director for Assistant Assembly Majority Leader, directing a staff of policy consultants and legislative aides.
He was also the legislative director for the Assembly Minority Whip and managed political campaigns in state legislative races.
He is past president of the national Council of State Restaurants Associations, served as Vice Chairman of Operations for Visit California, served two terms as a Board of Director for the National Restaurant Association, and serves as a board adviser to the California State University Hospitality & Tourism Management Education Initiative.
The California Restaurant Association is at the forefront of key industry issues including minimum wage, tip credits and the banning of gas in kitchens.
Total Food Service sought out Jot Condie, to get his thoughts on where these issues stand in California with an eye towards those very same challenges finding their way across the nation.
For those who don’t know the CRA, can you share an overview of the association?
We are the largest and longest standing state restaurant trade group in the country. We represent the interests of the entire industry in California, and are the voice and the promoter and defender of the industry before every level of government in the state.
Our primary purpose is to defend the industry and provide compliance services to our members including legal consultations, compliance bulletins to keep them in compliance and out of trouble because, frankly, it’s hard to keep up in a state like California.
In a strange way COVID gave a lot of restaurateurs an opportunity or a need to reengage with their state association, that they may have taken for granted.
Absolutely. In fact, we gained more members during COVID than we did in any other period.
It was largely because restaurant owners were starved for information and that’s the core competency of our association; providing and translating information directly from the government to our membership before they can get it anywhere else.
Talk a little bit about your career path. What brought you to CRA?
I’ve been representing the industry for 24 years. Initially, I was recruited to be the chief lobbyist for the association and was promoted to CEO in 2005.
Prior to that, I was a lobbyist for the manufacturing sector – aerospace, energy, auto manufacturing, tech — primarily working on environmental issues.
Before that, I served as the staff director to the then Assembly Majority Leader. I’ve been in the political and public policy space my entire career.
When you walked in the door at CRA, what was the agenda you inherited and how has it evolved over two plus decades?
When I was recruited out of the manufacturing sector, I loved the thought of representing the restaurant industry.
My first job was in the industry as a dishwasher and I enjoyed the camaraderie and team work that is so integral in hospitality.
But I think what really intrigued me was the opportunity to manage government affairs for an industry that found itself in what I would call the political and public policy wilderness.
For various reasons the association had burned some political bridges, and I thought it would be an exciting challenge to rebuild the credibility of the organization – to rehabilitate its advocacy and influence.
That continues to be our agenda today: how do we expand our footprint in terms of advocacy? How do we amplify the voice of the industry in a way that is productive for our public policy goals?
That’s why we wanted to talk with you as you’ve just come out of a piece of legislation that, to me, draws a line in the sand in terms of where this industry is headed.
Unfortunately, over the past 10 years, the activism of the California State Legislature, and every major California city has progressively gotten, um, more progressive. As a result, it has become more operationally difficult for not just restaurants, but the entire business community.
For better or worse, representative democracy is alive and well in California. Lawmakers are a reflection of the voters, and California is — more than ever — a deep blue, progressive state.
So, when it comes to employment issues, the elected policy makers are decidedly more progressive and in alignment with the unions who are the most powerful force in California politics today.
To a significant degree, they’re driving the agendas in the big cities and in the Capitol.
So, over the last decade, there’s been constant public policy fights over the “balance of power” in the workplace between the employer and employee.
But this last year in particular, because of the FAST Act, it felt like the restaurant industry – or a segment of it — had a target on its back.
When did the FAST (Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act) piece of legislation first come across your desk? When did you realize that you were in for a battle?
The moment it came across my desk in 2021.
As we were coming out of COVID the pent-up union agenda uncoiled like an overloaded spring following two years of legislative “hibernation”.
So we saw a massive increase – ostensibly to make up for lost time – of union-backed worker rights, wage increase, and pro-unionization bills. The Fast Act was one of those legislative proposals.
Then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez — now head of the California Labor Federation — introduced the bill at the behest of SEIU (Service Employees International Union) who for over a decade have tried to organize the quick service sector of our industry.
For 15 years, every Labor Day, there’s been national walkouts and protests, at the headquarters of many fast-food brands and their restaurant locations with the goal of organizing the workforce. SEIU viewed the Fast Act as the culmination of these efforts.
Coming out of COVID SEIU capitalized on isolated, but well-publicized, instances where several employers made some missteps in the confusion of the ever-changing COVID workplace protocols.
They amplified these news stories on social media making them a central feature in their campaign to pass the Fast Act and painting an inaccurate portrait of an entire industry sector.
In fact, the fast-food restaurant sector has one of the best compliance track records of any industry sector in California.
The bill initially failed in a close vote at the end of 2021.
When that first vote came out, did you think you were done?
We knew it would come back because SEIU is arguably the most potent union force in the state and Assemblywoman Gonzalez was one of the more powerful members of the assembly at the time.
They were completely caught off guard by the initial failure of the bill. Both had invested significant resources and political capital in the fight.
For us, the initial failure of the Fast Act in September of 2021 was a big victory. We rallied our restaurant membership, most of whom were not fast-food franchisees.
Our membership knew that if this bill passed, it was only a matter of time before the policy expanded to other sectors. They also saw the Fast Act for what it was – an exotic policy solution in search of a problem.
But upon its failure “reconsideration” was granted for the following January.
So, in between legislative sessions, the SEIU was clearly determined not to get caught flat footed again and they waged an aggressive and heavily resourced campaign in lawmakers districts.
When the legislature reconvened the following January and the vote came up for reconsideration, they barely eked out its passage by one vote.
So, the fight began anew but by this time our entire industry woke up and got involved. But the bill also became a national priority for SEIU International, so the stakes got higher.
They poured in massive resources to pass the bill. There were a lot of twists and turns through the 2022 legislative session that culminated in the signature of the bill.
Then of course, the rest is history with the fast-food brands funding a referendum which led to a negotiated deal to pull back the referendum and agree to a compromise.
Where did the Governor sit on this thing as you went through the process?
Governor Newsom was letting this play out in the legislature. During the legislative deliberations he did not weigh in publicly.
The bill barely squeaked out of both houses with just one vote because there was so much discomfort with the bill.
Was there discomfort by the Assembly over the potential of a “$40 Cheeseburger”?
I think the legislature sort of understood the ultimate impact this bill would have on small businesses and consumers. But they also understood the impacts of voting against SEIU’s top legislative priority. See above — SEIU’s political potency.
For many lawmakers the discomfort was based on the legality of the measure. In some legal circles there was a view that the Fast Act, as written, amounted to unlawful delegation of legislative authority by creating an unelected council with quasi legislative and judicial enforcement powers.
Even with the pro-union, progressive make-up of the legislature, many viewed it as a ham-handed – even reckless – experiment.
What was the joint employer piece that was added?
Originally AB 257 had two parts; the creation of this Fast Act Council, and the joint employer provision, which would have held franchisors – the brands – jointly liable for employment law violations of their franchisees.
But, before the bill landed on the governor’s desk, the joint employer part was eliminated from the bill.
That provision got the attention of virtually every company that franchises in California as it would have upended the business model for fast food sector.
You would have seen massive contraction of fast-food outlets in California. That was one piece that I think the Governor was uncomfortable with. Many members of legislature were clearly uncomfortable with it as they felt that it had constitutional infirmities.
So that piece came out of the bill towards the end of the legislative process. The Governor signed the Fast Act without the joint employer provision.
But as you know the fast food brands collected enough voter signatures to delay the implementation of the law until voters decided its fate on the 2024 general election ballot.
In an act of retribution for putting the Fast Act question to the voters – and delaying its implementation – SEIU successfully lobbied for the reintroduction of the joint employer bill in the 2023 legislative session.
Ultimately that bill’s reintroduction, and its possible passage, was a contributor — along with the fast-food brands referendum — that drove the SEIU and some of the fast food brands to negotiate the ultimate outcome of the Fast Act alternative.
As you look back on the process what is it that they were trying to accomplish? Was the goal for someone flipping burgers to be able to live in Beverly Hills?
For years SEIU has been waging a nationwide “fight for 15” campaign in an effort to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. In California, and other jurisdictions, it’s over 15 dollars an hour.
So now their national campaign is “fight for 15 and a union”. Their long-stated objective in this campaign has been to raise the standard of living for entry-level wage workers.
And that – along with their misrepresentation of workplace compliance issues – was at the center of their Fast Act narrative.
But the fact is, unions are a big business. It can’t be overstated. Every year, they generate hundreds of millions of dollars from dues-paying members — the workers.
They spend that money on their army of executives, lobbyists, organizers, PR professionals and on their already-bloated political action committees.
And those PACs bankroll the campaigns of their friends in the legislature and in city halls. It’s the source of their power and influence.
In the spirited Fast Act debate it was easy to miss the union’s claim that workers — in this case fast food workers – need a “seat at the table”.
When they’re proposing twenty-two dollars an hour for fast food workers and government councils dictating how franchise owners run their business and killing the franchise business model through joint liability, the notion of a “seat at the table” recedes into the background as an abstract slogan.
What does that even mean?
In the organized labor structure, you get a “seat at the table” if you are a member of a union where your interests are bargained for by your union. How the unions intended to convert the original Fast Act law into unionizing California’s fast-food workers is still a source of speculation.
But they do see the service sector, including fast food restaurants, as a source of untapped membership -revenue.
So, what were they trying to accomplish? Increasing wages? Absolutely.
Ultimately it was about increasing their union membership and therefore their power and influence.
You have many second and third generation CRA members. Is it naïve to think that they understand that their families have grown these successful businesses by treating people respectfully?
It’s not naïve. It’s 100% true. No business owner understands better what a consumer wants than the restaurant owner and operator.
Delivery of a great meal and experience are central to customer satisfaction and loyalty.
And you cannot achieve either of these unless you have employees who are treated with respect, motivated, and work in a collaborative and teamwork-oriented environment.
Building and maintaining a culture of hospitality is equally important for the customer as it is for the employee.
Most operators try to provide a work environment that is family like. I hear it all the time that these second and third generation restaurant operators have workers who have been at their side for 20 or 30 years.
They are like family.
Of course, you have employees like servers, for example, who are younger and working for tips and putting themselves through school and not in the industry for a career, but they’re still part of the family.
Employee satisfaction, and happiness, and creating a positive environment is more critical for a restaurant than any other type of business.
Do California legislators understand the growth of robotics and their potential to replace jobs?
It’s happening now. And we talk to them about it often. Many businesses have been able to adopt technologies that make it more convenient for the customer.
Interestingly, there was a proposal several years ago in San Francisco — no surprise — where they were floating a proposed tax on employers who replaced workers with automation or robotics.
Many of their city policies were forcing employers to figure out other ways to provide for their customers because they couldn’t afford to stay open with the burdensome city policies.
So, businesses figure out a way to operate more efficiently with technology and then the city proposes a law punishing businesses who are adopting strategies to stay in business.
What are your thoughts on major change in Wage Theft laws?
Any employer intentionally engaged in wage theft should be held to account. And California has the most robust worker protection laws in the nation, if not the world.
When most people think of “wage theft”, it congers images of an employer manipulating time sheets to avoid paying a worker what they are owed.
Unfortunately, there are bad employers in every industry who intentionally short a worker what they are owed, and the state should “throw the book” at them.
It’s hard to argue against enhanced penalties for intentional wage theft, but unfortunately, the definition of wage theft could also include an inadvertent error through payroll processing so an unintentional clerical error is treated or defined as a negligent or deliberate illegal act.
How did Starbucks and Gentleman’s Clubs end up in the forefront of the unionization movement in California?
To be sure, both were high profile. Of course, there’s a different dynamic in every workplace. I can think of zero similarities between the workplace dynamics in a coffee shop versus a strip club.
We watched the Starbucks effort play out in the media. Much of the coverage portrayed the effort as if it was only a matter of time before the entire Starbucks system would be unionized.
I think less than 4% of Starbucks have voted on the unionizing question. And many of the elections resulted in a vote not to unionize.
The pandemic seemed to be an accelerant. According to some who closely watched the effort unfold, much of the organizing and worker coordination was online or over social media.
The downer of the pandemic and the mundaneness of home confinement seemed to provide a fertile environment for their online organizing.
For many people, not just Starbucks workers, the pandemic ushered in a desire for distraction, for connection with others, a shared experience or something purposeful.
I don’t mean to discount the workers’ motivations to unionize but the effort seemed to engender a camaraderie and excitement for those workers at a time otherwise remembered as being dark and isolated.
It appears that the momentum has slowed considerably. And now workers in some locations are seeking to decertify their union. Perhaps the excitement of organizing coffee shops has ebbed a bit. Or perhaps they realized that Starbucks is actually a good company to work for.
Who will sit on this FAST Act Council and will the CRA have a seat on this Council?
No seat for us. It’s structured, as a nine-member council. Seven of them are appointed by the Governor; Two representatives of the fast-food industry, two fast food restaurant owners, two fast food workers, and one independent appointee who is not affiliated with restaurant owners or workers.
The other two council members will be appointed by the legislative leadership, and they must be advocates – otherwise known as lobbyists – for fast food workers. Mercifully, there is not a slot for a restaurant trade
organization.
I’m curious, what’s the attitude of California landlords right now towards restaurant tenants? Do you see it as a good time to open a new restaurant in California?
Landlords in urban centers are more than eager to woo restaurant owners into their vacant storefronts. The leasing incentives are plentiful. So, the rent deals may be good, but the downtown office occupancy rates are still anemic.
Our larger metropolitan centers – San Francisco, Downtown LA, parts of Silicon Valley, Sacramento, Oakland, and others – had dense worker populations pre-pandemic.
They have not bounced back. That’s impacted the viability of restaurants counting on the lunchtime, after-work-dinner or after-work-drink crowds.
As you look towards 2024, is the industry healthy?
In California, the industry is struggling to remain viable in the face of rising food costs, the steepest and longest-running year-over-year minimum wage hikes in California history, and a consumer fatigued by the impacts of stubborn inflation.
There are also many variables like the region of the state with its many economic microclimates and the industry segment each with a different business model.
So, it depends. What we have going for us is that we have a big state with a lot of customers who love their restaurants to the tune of 10 million transactions per day.
How could a new immigration policy help the restaurant industry in California?
We have long been advocates for a better, fairer immigration policy. It would definitely help address our current workforce challenges. But it’s not just our workforce.
Sixty percent of California restaurants are owned and operated by people of color. What makes this state and our industry so great is the rich diversity of cultures and the many different cuisines available.
California is an incubator for some of the greatest restaurants in the county. And it’s the diversity of our workforce and restaurant ownership that make this so.
Any advice for state restaurant associations as they look at the challenges that lie ahead?
I know all of my counterparts in the other state’s and they certainly don’t need advice from me. Every state is different and the challenges we face are often unique to our state’s political and public policy dynamics.
I do spend a fair amount of time with my peers from the other western “blue states” comparing notes on how to deal with different public policy challenges. And because we are often fighting the same battles, I seek advice as often as I give it.
