IFA Leaders Support the Growth of Franchising in Pakistan

State

Aziz Hashim, Phil Zeidman and Aslam Khan prepare to broadcast from the U.S. State Department

On March 2nd, IFA in conjunction with the U.S. State Department, USAID, and the U.S. Department of Commerce presented a video webinar on franchising for the business community in Pakistan to support economic development.

Aziz Hashim, Managing Partner, NRD Capital and IFA Vice Chair opened the webinar and introduced to listeners to franchising.  Phil Zeidman, Senior Partner, DLA Piper and IFA General Counsel followed by sharing an overview of franchise law.  Aslam Khan, CEO of Falcon Holdings related his journey from employee in the American Club in Islamabad to success as a franchisee in the U.S.

The U.S. Government worked with chambers of commerce and other business groups in Pakistan to promote the webinar and hosted groups in Karachi and Islamabad to watch the webinar live.  The webinar will be used on an ongoing basis for franchise education in Pakistan.  It will also serve as a recruiting tool for a Pakistan Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT) program delegation that will visit New York during the June 2015 International Franchise Expo.

Watch the webinar below.

Senate HELP Committee Examines “Ambush” Election Rule

Yesterday the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) held a hearing titled “Ambushed: How the NLRB’s New Election Rule Harms Employers & Employees,” to discuss a controversial new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule to speed up union representation elections. In December the NLRB reissued a previously invalidated rule that dramatically decreased the amount of time employers and employees have to prepare for a union representation election. Many in the business community argue that the accelerated election schedule would prevent business owners from developing a complete response to a union proposal and compromise both workers’ privacy and ability to make an informed decision.

HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) strongly condemned the reissued rule. “I refer to this as the ‘ambush election rule,’ because it forces a union election before an employer has a chance to figure out what is going on” Alexander said in his opening statement. “Even worse, it jeopardizes employees’ privacy by requiring employers to turn over personal information including email addresses, phone numbers, shift hours and locations to union organizers. Today more than 95 percent of union elections occur within 56 days of the petition-filing. But under this new rule, elections could take place in as few as 11 days.”

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) echoed the Chairman’s concerns, adding “I would tell you that this rule is radical, it is ridiculous, and it is oppressive and it applies to all employers no matter how many employees you have… If there’s any sense of an ambush, as an employer trying to create jobs, help families, this rule stands front and center to that point.”

Earlier this year, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) filed a lawsuit to prevent the NLRB from implementing this new rule, which becomes effective on April 14. IFA sits on the management committee of CDW. A decision on the case is expected this spring.

Achieved video of the hearing, along with the witnesses’ testimony, can be found here.

Local Franchise Owners Warn Senate HELP Committee that Proposed NLRB Joint Employer Changes Will Reduce Entrepreneurship Opportunities

Today, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing to examine the impact that National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) general counsel Richard Griffin’s recent actions could have on small businesses all over the country. Last year, Griffin filed an amicus brief in the Browning Ferris Industries case that recommended franchisors be considered joint employers with franchisees. Later, he authorized dozens of complaints against a franchisor, naming it as a joint employer with franchisees. The hearing, titled Who’s the Boss? The “Joint Employer” Standard and Business Ownership, featured testimony from two franchisees who told the committee members of the negative impacts that changes to current joint employer standards would have on their small businesses.

Gerald Moore, the owner of five The Little Gym franchises in Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina, explained that such a radical change to established labor law would fundamentally undermine the franchise relationship, saying that it “would mean that my franchisor would be jointly responsible for all of my employment-related liabilities… This will mean increased control and more day-to-day involvement by The Little Gym International.”

John Sims IV, who owns a Rainbow Station franchise in Richmond, Va., added that the general counsel’s actions were already having a negative impact on his business’ plans. “My wife and I have often talked about opening a second Rainbow Station location,” Sims explained. “However, the uncertainty as to what the future holds for franchisees and other small businesses has forced us to put that plan on hold. It simply does not make sense to try and grow our business at a time when we do not know what the future of our business will be.”

Although some Democratic members of the committee claimed the impact of such a change would be limited, HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) agreed that a dramatic change in joint employer standards would have negative consequences that reached far beyond the franchise community. “This case doesn’t just affect franchisees, it will affect every business that uses a subcontractor or contracts out for any service.  That includes most of the 5.7 million businesses under NLRB jurisdiction in America – because most businesses contract for some service.”

You find an achieved webcast of the hearing, along with the witnesses’ testimony, here. If you would like more information on the joint employer issue, please visit IFA’s Labor and Workforce Hub. You can also be a part of IFA’s nationwide grassroots efforts to preserve the franchise model by joining the Franchise Action Network.

Legal Challenge Against Part of Seattle Minimum Wage Law Moves Forward

The legal challenge against the discriminatory provisions of Seattle’s new minimum wage law is taking an important step forward. The International Franchise Association and Seattle franchisees last June filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to challenge the provisions of the new law that discriminated against small franchise businesses. Then in August, the IFA requested a preliminary injunction to stop the discriminatory provisions of the minimum wage law from taking effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard A. Jones has now set oral arguments on that request for a preliminary injunction for 9 a.m. PST on Tuesday, March 10.  This will be the first time that arguments will be made on the legal challenge to the new law in person.  The hearing will be before Judge Jones at the U.S. District Courthouse in downtown Seattle.

Paul D. Clement, a partner at the law firm Bancroft PLLC and a former U.S. Solicitor General, is expected to represent the IFA and the Seattle franchisees at the March hearing.  IFA and five Seattle franchisees sued Seattle in June seeking to stop the city from treating franchisees as large, national companies rather than the small, locally-owned businesses that they are.

Seattle’s ordinance requires large businesses, defined as those with more than 500 employees, to raise the minimum wage they pay their employees to $15 an hour over three years starting April 1, 2015. Smaller businesses get seven years to phase in the wage increase. But at the request of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the law treats a single hotel, print center, restaurant or in-home health care provider as if it employs more than 500 people due to its affiliation with a national chain, even if it only employs five people, thereby creating an uneven playing field.

The city’s ordinance willfully categorizes small, independently-owned franchise owners as big, out-of-state businesses, a violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit argues that the Seattle ordinance defies years of legal precedent clearly defining a franchisee as an independent local business owner who operates separately from its franchisors that provide brand and marketing materials, based on the payment of an initial franchise fee and ongoing royalty payments to use the brand’s trademark.

Judge Jones is likely to decide on the preliminary injunction before the law takes effect on April 1. Regardless of the ruling on the injunction, the lawsuit against the franchisee provisions of the new law will continue.  

The injunction – and the lawsuit – seek to stop only the provisions of the new law that discriminate against franchise businesses. If the injunction is granted, the new minimum wage law still takes effect. Small franchise businesses, however, would adopt the $15 minimum wage on the same 7-year timetable as other small businesses, instead of the 3-year schedule currently required in the ordinance.     

To learn more about the preliminary injunction, read IFA’s motion for the injunction here, and the IFA’s further briefs on the injunction here and here.

IFA Board Member Urges Return to 40 Hour Work Week

 

Today, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing titled Examining Job-Based Health Insurance and Defining Full-Time Work. Among the witnesses testifying at the hearing was IFA Board Member Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants Holdings, which owns the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurant brands. In his testimony, Puzder explained to the Committee members that the Affordable Care Act’s redefinition of full time employment from the industry standard 40 hours per week to 30 hours was leading to a dramatic reduction in hours and take-home pay for part time workers.

“The logic for businesses is simple,” Puzder testified. “If you have three employees working 40 hours per week they will produce 120 labor hours. Five employees working 24 hours per week also produce 120 labor hours. Employers must offer the three full-time employees health insurance or pay a penalty. They have no obligation to the five part-time employees, making part time employment less costly. I believe this has resulted in employers reducing hundreds of thousands of jobs to under 30 hours a week.”

Bipartisan legislation to correct this negative impact of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, the Save American Workers Act, cleared the House earlier this year by a  vote of 252-172. IFA has made passage of this critical reform one of its priorities for 2015. The More Time for Full Time Initiative, a coalition of leading business groups started by IFA, played an instrumental role in lobbying Congress to support this legislation. Companion legislation, the Forty Hours is Full Time Act has already been introduced in the Senate with bipartisan support. A letter from the More Time for Full Time Initiative encouraging passage of the legislation was introduced into the record during today’s hearing by HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN).

A complete video of the hearing, along with written testimony from the witnesses, can be found here.