The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Nov 24, 2017

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


7 Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Silent Voice was heard loud and clear

The franchisee organizations didn't want to share the same experience as the IFA of looking like buff00ns where they claim franchising is the greatest thing since sliced bread and then portray the franchisees as homeless paupers. Great job being the village idi0t.

The only thing the IFA is good at is making sure franchisor contracts incorporate all the latest legal case jargon to ensure franchisees have no shot at Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Yeah, they sure represented zees interest on that one.

The Silent Voice

Where have the so-called franchisee organizations been during the Seattle push for an increased minimum wage? If certain organizations don't represent the franchisee community who do they represent? At least the IFA stands for franchisors and the franchisees in Seattle.

Who is the IFA really ?

The IFA is supported by FRANCHISORS and large franchisees, that's why they felt compelled to sue the City of Seattle in the first place...to show their constituency they are doing something.

It is the IFA's position that nothing should change. Franchising has become nothing more than legal racketeering for this very reason and because of the IFA, NFIB, US Chamber of Commerce and others who buy (or rent) politician's as they need them. This minimum wage increase will be hard on those who operate in Seattle but on everyone else...not so much, Franchisors simply don't want this to spread to other cities.

This rate hike will ultimately be bad for small businesses and employees (as it always is), demand should set the market.

Oldsword Reasoned Discourse

I never thought I'd read something reasonable from Oldsword.

Craig Hsueh's picture

Re: Franchising and the $15 minimum wage

The IFA is painting a picture of weak franchisee financial standing now - BEFORE the wage hikes come into affect. - Old Sword

I see your point. Either franchising allows small business owners advantages of large economies of scale to their bottom line, OR IT DOESN'T. If the franchise model allows advantages, then aren't franchisees better situated to first help raise the city of Seattle's desire for a minimum wage floor and then have the the less advantaged independent small businesses follow later?

It seems the City of Seattle and the federal judge ruled in support of the International Franchise Association's public position that the franchise model indeed has financial advantages to franchised small business owners. The city would reason that ergo, franchisees are better situated to first absorb the higher wage costs. The IFA countered that targeting franchisees first was simply unfair, and that somehow a municipality could not do this to franchises in their city because the framers of our U.S. Constitution (e.g. the interstate commerce clause?) prohibited singling out Seattle groups of consumers or businesses for separate regulatory demands. The IFA's CEO Caldeira said:

It was never about Seattle raising the minimum wage to $15 wage, but rather the increase applied in a discriminatory way," he declared.

In other words, you can't single out the wealthy for higher taxes, target dentist offices to require a higher minimum wage or select a lower minimum wage for some workers at restaurants compared to the rest of us.

I don't think that is true; and apparently, neither did the federal judge.

I am sympathetic to the IFA's question of why can't we all have fairer regulations so that every industry and business pays the same required minimal wage -- or flat tax for that matter. I just don't think that argument will work in blue areas of the country. In fact, it did not. Heck, it wouldn't even be passed at this moment in the red swaths.

I wonder how the IFA chose to use these particular arguments and was so tone deaf to the city council? I now fear that other cities may follow Seattle's lead.

FuwaFuwaUsagi's picture

Got to admit it Old Sword,

Got to admit it Old Sword, this was a hilarious post; I laughed my rear off reading it.  

It is a great observation on your part.  

I could add to it, but I'll refrrain, it is a masterpiece that should stand on its own.

 

Old Sword's picture

Franchising and the $15 minimum wage: For Whom The Bell Tolls

So, let me understand this:  For decades the IFA has proclaimed franchising to be the holy grail of business models with success rates (read: profitability) unsurpassed by traditional mom and pop stores (although all government reports beg to differ).  Now these franchisees are described as barely eeking out an existence unable to pay a decent wage to their employees.  Which one is it?  I am NOT saying that these FUTURE wage hikes won't be detrimental to the financial well being of franchisees.  However, the IFA is painting a picture of weak franchisee financial standing now - BEFORE the wage hikes come into affect.  I thought the whole premise of having the privilege of paying the tens of thousands of dollars in franchise fees to hang that sign out the front was drive business through the doors unlike anything a mom and pop store could do - and yet they won't have the ability to pay the employees more money?

And maybe the franchisee could get some help!  Remember the IFA mantra "be in business for yourself but not by yourself"?  Since they are 'all in this together' (thank you Disney) and the franchisor is selling the idea of being in business with the franchisee (again, "not by yourself") shouldn't the franchisor help with the additional expense by reducing their royalties to help compensate?

Or is the franchisee really in this solely by themselves, barely scraping out a living, with this minimum wage hike being the death knell?

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Add new comment