When the Los Angeles City Council fails to listen to workers, it fails to represent the very people it was elected to serve. California workers rely on policymakers to craft policies in their best interests, and to know what those interests are, Council members should ask them.
The LA City Council is currently weighing a new training mandate for the city’s 67,000 fast food workers, yet a recent survey found that workers disapprove of the key components of the policy.
We surveyed 1,246 fast food workers across Los Angeles County, and published the results in a new study with Pepperdine University.
The ordinance under consideration would require fast food workers to complete a six-hour, in-person training program administered by an outside third party. The survey found that 70% of respondents disapproved of this proposal.
This is a statistically significant finding policymakers should consider when evaluating whether the proposal reflects the needs and realities of the workforce it is intended to serve.
Furthermore, when asked about each of the proposal’s three components individually, workers’ preferences were nearly the opposite of what the ordinance would require: they preferred employers or employer-selected trainers over outside organizations, online rather than in-person training, and significantly shorter training sessions.
Who delivers the training matters because of worker trust and privacy. Nearly three out of four workers said they are concerned about sharing their personal information with a third-party training provider. Workers routinely provide information to their employers as part of the employment relationship. Requiring them to provide personal information to an outside organization introduces risk, and the survey shows workers have meaningful concerns about doing so.
More than 70% said they trust their employer or an employer-selected trainer to provide accurate, unbiased information. By comparison, only 4% said they would trust an outside organization to deliver the training. In an age in which personal information is more at risk than ever, public policies should help guard it.
Regarding in-person or virtual training, 84% of respondents said flexibility is very or somewhat important. Hourly workers are often balancing multiple responsibilities such as childcare, school, and long commutes. Giving workers the ability to take training virtually provides them with flexibility in their schedule. More than three-quarters prefer online training they can complete on their own schedule.
Last, workers expressed a strong preference for shorter trainings. Faced with competing demands, their time is important. More than two-thirds believe training should last three hours or less. By comparison, only 14% prefer four hours of training, while just 5% prefer training lasting five hours or longer.
Workers are also well-equipped to navigate online resources, with a vast majority reporting that they are comfortable using digital devices. Requiring fast food workers to sit through hours of in-person instruction underestimates both their capabilities and their stated preferences. An online option would better reflect how workers want training delivered while providing the flexibility they overwhelmingly value.
Importantly, the findings do not suggest workers are opposed to workplace training itself. They show something more nuanced: workers have clear views about how that training should work. They want it reasonably short, accessible online, flexible enough to fit their schedules, and delivered through channels they trust.
If democracy is about representing the preferences of the people, policymakers should listen to what those preferences are. This survey provides empirical evidence on exactly what fast-food workers prefer. The City Council should take this opportunity to listen to them, and craft policy that better supports local workers.
Stafford Nichols is the policy and economic impact practice manager at Beacon Economics