Calif. Law Will Require License to Flip Burgers

"You got a license for that spatula?"

"You got a license for that spatula?"

Anyone seeking low-wage employment as a fry cook or burger flipper at fast food restaurants in Calif. will soon have to pass a state-administered licensing exam to assure they are skilled in their ‘trades.’

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) was the mastermind behind the Food Safety law that stands to bankroll the fiscally irresponsible state with $105 million in “food handler” licensing and training fees in 2011 alone.

“Food handlers” charged with “preparation, storage or service of food” will be required as of June 1, 2011 by S.B. 602 to possess the licenses that will cost “no more than $60.” The training course prior to licensing will tack on another $15.

According to the California Restaurant Association which supported the licensing law, “California is home to more than 1.4 million food industry jobs.” If each of those 1.4 million food workers pay a total of $75 for their required training and licensing, the state will pull in an easy $105 million in 2011 alone. License renewals should ensure a steady flow of free money for years to come.

Does this sound like a big government revenue-generating scheme or an authentic effort by bureaucrats to ensure French fries, hamburgers, filet mignons, deli sandwiches, donuts, ice cream cones, coffee, etc. are properly prepared?

Here’s an even better question, how do you think the state will go about licensing illegal aliens who work ‘in the shadows’ for food service employers? Surely, they won’t be applying for the licenses, but will still be preparing food in kitchens at countless restaurants across the state. Try asking Sen. Padilla how that’s going to work since he’s so concerned about ensuring “food safety.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine


8 responses to “Calif. Law Will Require License to Flip Burgers

  1. Pingback: I expect nothing less from the state of California. | Conserva-Kat

  2. California does not believe there are any other states in the nation; the provincialism is amazing. And they do not tell me how to think. The hippies started it in the 60s and they didn’t dictate my thinking then, either.

  3. Another follow-up action is required. Recommend investigating who got the training contract for the “food handlers” course. Ask some questions, like “Did the company who won the contract have any links to Sen Padilla or the Democrat party? Follow the money.

  4. harleyrider1978

    Absolutely unbelievable! california should be EVICTED from the united states………..

  5. Hello,

    I am Alex Padilla’s opponent in the Nov. 2 election. The above is just one example of the “feel-good” but completely unnecessary and ineffective legislation he keeps proposing. CLick here for more:

    or here for a video:

    Vote’em out!

  6. Oh god.. I have a feeling this action will be giving the regulators in my state ideas (in Massachusetts) assuming they haven’t already done this.

  7. As a Californian, believe me — if they had a choice — I think many would be O.K. with California becoming its own sovereign country so they wouldn’t ave to deal with the red states b.s. (there are plenty of bigots/racists/religious extremist Christians in the rural counties and Orange County). Sorry, but the coasts (New York and California) are the economic, political, and cultural nexus of the United States. Are they the only regions? no, just the most prominent.

    That being said, licenses that are not issued for safety reasons are well known revenue sources for state budgets, not just in California. This is criminal only because the cost of the training is being put onto the poor working class individual fry cook. Taxing the poor is unethical in the same way Bush-era tax cuts for the rich didn’t make any sense. The only way this would make sense is if the money collected by the licenses went directly into funding public services that would benefit those being taxed. Of course, I doubt that is what would happen.

  8. The exam you are talking about is something like this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s