Council approves modified fast‑food/workweek ordinance; rejects broader reporting amendment

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a modified ordinance intended to expand predictable‑scheduling and worker‑rights measures for restaurant and fast‑food employees, adopting amendment 28A and approving the ordinance as amended after the council rejected a separate amendment, 28B.

The vote followed hours of public comment from restaurant owners and workers and a lengthy council debate about whether additional economic and geographic impact studies were needed before enacting the measure. Councilmembers voted 7–8 to reject amendment 28B and later voted 15–0 to approve amendment 28A and to pass Item 28 as modified.

Advocates and union representatives urged the council to adopt the ordinance and to require employers to provide training and predictable schedules. “Estamos aquí para asegurar que ustedes aprueben esta moción para los trabajadores de comida rápida,” said Felipe Caseres, who identified himself as representing “más de cinco mil trabajadores” in the sector. Erika, who said she works at Wynnstaff in Los Angeles, told the council, “Estoy aquí a huelga porque mi empleador está está afectándome como represalias después de levantar la voz … Le pedimos que aprueben esta ordenanza sin demora.”

Several small business owners and restaurant operators urged the council to reject requirements they said would raise costs and force reduced hours or closures. “Desde aumentar los salarios tenía que tomar decisiones muy difíciles entre acortar las horas, subir los precios y yo tenía que trabajar unas horas yo sola,” said Liam Woo, identifying himself as a restaurant operator who employs “más o contratamos más de veintiséis empleados.” Juan Carlos Chacón, who said he operates multiple restaurants with about 170 employees, said higher labor costs had already forced him to cut hours and raise prices.

The council’s debate focused on two competing priorities: enacting worker protections quickly and collecting additional data about economic impacts and geographic equity before enacting new requirements. Councilmember Hugo Soto‑Martínez introduced a modification that was ultimately adopted as 28C/28A (as amended in the meeting) that directs staff to prepare specified reports and recommendations while leaving the core ordinance in place. Councilmember [Introduced amendment] Bloomenfield introduced 28B, seconded by Councilmember Park, which would have required a broader set of economic‑impact studies and external vendor work; that amendment failed 7–8.

City staff and the council’s legislative analyst warned that commissioning outside reports and issuing a request for proposals would add months and require budget or outside funding. The legislative analyst told the council that, “Como mínimo, yo diría entre cuatro a seis meses para emitir la petición de propuesta,” and that the process would require identifying funding, soliciting…