Advertisement
Terri Gerstein

Crucial task of protecting workers now falls to local enforcement

Two hands with sushi rolls
(Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times)
0:00 0:00

This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.

See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred

An explosive lawsuit filed by San Diego County last month alleges that sushi chefs throughout California are badly exploited, making subminimum wages while routinely working up to 70 hours per week, with no paid sick days or other protections. Such worker exploitation can be hiding in plain sight and has been widely documented in many other cases for years, highlighting the urgent need for more action by state and local governments, given the Trump administration’s gutting of labor agencies and abdication of workers’ rights.

San Diego’s lawsuit against half a dozen sushi corporations reveals that in hundreds of grocery stores throughout California — and likely nationwide — sushi chefs are not treated as employees. They prepare, package and price food for customers, just like employees behind the deli, meat or bakery counters. But the sushi chefs are treated as independent contractors, as if they were running their own tiny independent businesses within the grocery store.

This distinction matters because virtually all workplace laws cover employees and not independent contractors who run their own businesses. Minimum wage, overtime, paid sick leave, antidiscrimination, unionizing, and workplace safety and health laws protect employees. Businesses must buy workers’ compensation insurance and pay unemployment insurance and payroll taxes for employees.

Advertisement

For a business willing to mistreat people and break the law, a profitable slick maneuver is clear: Pretend that workers are independent contractors, and you may be able to shed a pile of legal obligations and pocket the savings — by most estimates, around 33% or more of labor costs.

Of course, genuine small businesses do exist, like the graphic designer striking out on their own, or the solo plumber who comes to fix your bathroom. But it’s against the law to treat ordinary workers who should be employees as independent contractors without rights. “Misclassification” is a misleadingly innocuous term for this phenomenon, as though a corporation accidentally placed a worker’s file in the wrong cabinet. Really, it’s fraud, plain and simple. It lowers people’s pay, shifts risk to workers, cheats the government out of taxes for programs supporting workers and creates unfair competition for businesses that follow the law.

Gig worker misclassification gets the most attention — and the Uber-Lyft model is unfortunately spreading — but misclassification erodes labor standards across the economy, affecting construction workers, truck drivers, court interpreters, delivery drivers, janitors and perhaps, it seems, the sushi chefs at your neighborhood supermarket.

The San Diego case involves an additional twist: The sushi chefs must pay to get their jobs, according to the lawsuit, because they’re treated as franchisees by large sushi companies that contract with supermarket chains.

If true, it wouldn’t be the first time this trick has been tried. In the janitorial industry, for instance, workers have been labeled “franchisees” even when they had no control over key terms of their work such as which customers they served or what rates they charged. Several courts have examined these facts and concluded that these so-called franchisees are actually employees and must be covered by workplace laws.

It makes you wonder: What else is going on just below our noses? Scratch the surface, and there’s worker exploitation in almost every sector of the economy.

Advertisement

Does your elderly mom or dad need full-time care? Widespread wage theft has been reported at care homes throughout California, and the San Diego district attorney in April even brought labor-trafficking charges in relation to egregious allegations in one facility.

How about getting a pedicure or going to the carwash? Whether it’s your toenails or your chrome rims, the person doing the polishing may be severely underpaid.

Do you order food from DoorDash? The corporation paid nearly $30 million for allegedly keeping tips that customers intended for workers in just two states and D.C.

Have you ever called customer service for help? Arise Virtual Communications — which handles customer service for national brands such as Dick’s Sporting Goods and Carnival Cruise Lines — treats its poorly paid workers as independent contractors. When the D.C. and Minnesota attorney general offices pursued Arise for wage and other violations, the corporation chose to stop operating altogether in those locations, rather than treat their workers as employees with legal rights. (In fact, Arise generally operates in states with lax workplace laws or enforcement.) Perhaps most appallingly, we’ve recently seen a widespread resurgence of child labor violations, with teenagers working the night shift in meatpacking plants, in auto manufacturing facilities, on rooftops and in other places posing extreme danger. Even well-known companies such as Chipotle have been cited for thousands of child labor violations.

In a time of deep economic distress, economic inequality and struggles to afford daily life, we need far more action to protect working people.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is instead coddling corporations that flout workers’ rights. Federal agencies have been gutted, and federal labor enforcement has collapsed in the past year, according to the nonprofit Good Jobs First. The Trump Labor Department even proposed a rule, opposed by almost two dozen state labor enforcers, that would make it easier for corporations to get away with misclassifying their workers.

Advertisement

The resulting enforcement vacuum urgently requires strong action by state and local governments to stand up for workers. Some of them, including state attorneys general, district attorneys, and local and state labor agencies, have been taking on scofflaw employers for years.

California has been leading nationally on these issues: The state’s innovative Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant program has sparked an uptick in local enforcement and served as a model for a similar program enacted in New York just last month. Lawsuits by San Francisco have successfully forced several gig staffing companies to reclassify their workers statewide as employees — and these victories have been replicated elsewhere.

But given the extent of exploitation, and the federal void, we need exponentially more: more resources, more enforcement, more fairness for law-abiding employers, more justice.

San Diego County is showing how it’s done — with bold action to protect hardworking people who, if the allegations prove true, have been chiseled and squeezed by predatory corporations. The sushi chefs preparing grocery-store California rolls and seaweed salad make the rest of our lives easier. Like all workers, they deserve a fair deal.

Terri Gerstein is the director of the Wagner Labor Initiative at NYU’s Graduate School of Public Service.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article argues that San Diego County’s lawsuit against several grocery-store sushi companies exposes a deliberate misclassification scheme in which sushi chefs are labeled as independent-contractor “franchisees” rather than employees, allowing corporations to avoid paying minimum wage, overtime, sick leave, and other basic protections while chefs work grueling hours in stores under company control.[3][6][9]
  • The column contends that treating these workers as franchisees forces them to “pay to work” by shouldering franchise fees, equipment rentals, mandatory purchases of food and packaging, and other business costs, often leaving little income after deductions and exposing them to severe financial risk if they become ill or stores close.[3][6]
  • The piece suggests that such misclassification is not a technical mistake but a form of fraud that depresses wages, shifts business risk onto workers, deprives government programs of tax revenue, and creates unfair competition for employers that comply with labor laws, with similar patterns seen across sectors including janitorial services, home care, carwashes, gig delivery, and remote customer service.
  • The article argues that federal labor enforcement has been hollowed out, pointing to Trump-era efforts to weaken worker protections and ease misclassification, which, in the column’s view, have created an enforcement vacuum that emboldens corporations to flout wage-and-hour, safety, and child labor rules.
  • The column contends that in response to this federal retreat, state and local governments must take the lead through aggressive enforcement, highlighting San Diego County’s Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement, which investigated the sushi operations and filed suit to recover unpaid wages and stop alleged abuses.[6][9]
  • The piece notes that California is portrayed as a national leader in this shift toward local enforcement, describing how the state’s Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant program channels millions of dollars to local prosecutors and labor agencies to pursue wage theft and misclassification cases, a model that has inspired similar initiatives in other states.[2][5][8][11]
  • The article argues that strategic enforcement partnerships and high-profile lawsuits, such as those that have forced gig staffing companies to reclassify workers as employees, show how robust state and local action can raise labor standards statewide and begin to counteract exploitation in low-wage industries.[11]
  • The column ultimately suggests that the San Diego sushi case is emblematic of a broader need for “exponentially more” resources and enforcement so that workers like grocery-store sushi chefs, who make daily life easier for consumers, receive a fair deal and lawful protections instead of being “chiseled and squeezed” by predatory business models.[3][6]

Different views on the topic

  • In contrast, legal commentary on federal labor policy notes that the Trump-era independent contractor rule embraced a five-factor “economic reality” test, which some employer-focused analyses describe as restoring traditional standards and providing clearer guidance for businesses seeking to use legitimate contracting arrangements without automatically triggering employee status.[1][7][10]
  • The Brownstein Hyatt analysis of the independent contractor rule points out that stricter state tests, such as California’s ABC test, presume workers are employees unless employers meet demanding criteria, and the piece underscores that the federal rule does not bar states from enforcing these tougher standards, implicitly highlighting concerns among businesses that such tests may impose steep penalties and constrain flexible work relationships.[7]
  • Coverage of ongoing litigation over federal classification rules observes that business groups and some employers have challenged attempts to delay or withdraw the Trump-era rule, arguing in court that sudden regulatory shifts create uncertainty and compliance burdens for companies that rely on independent contractors, and suggesting that stable, predictable rules are essential for planning labor needs.[10][1]
  • Employer-side blogs discussing the withdrawal of Obama-era guidance on independent contractors note that while private misclassification lawsuits remain prevalent, changes in federal enforcement priorities can reduce the likelihood of broad, aggressive federal actions, a development some commentators portray as easing pressure on businesses even as they continue to navigate complex state and local requirements.[1][4]
  • More broadly, business-oriented analyses of misclassification policy warn that overly expansive definitions of “employee” and aggressive enforcement campaigns risk sweeping in genuine small-business operators, freelancers, and franchise owners who value autonomy, arguing that a balanced approach should protect workers from abuse without undermining legitimate independent entrepreneurship or imposing duplicative obligations across overlapping regulatory regimes.[7][1]

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

Advertisement