Business View - October 2015 163
the City’s improper motivation to discriminate against
interstate commerce.”
“Franchisees compete for the same customers as non-
franchised businesses in Seattle, and they face the
same challenges other small businesses face and this
regulation puts them at a severe economic disadvan-
tage. Therefore, we believe they should be properly cat-
egorized as such. Put simply, a small local franchise
owner with 10 employees is the same as the small non-
franchise business owner,” Caldeira stated.
Large businesses in Seattle – defined as those with
more than 500 employees – will be forced to raise
the minimum wage they pay their employees to $15
an hour over three years. Smaller businesses will have
seven years to phase in the wage increase. The new
law classifies Seattle’s 600 franchisees – who own
1,700 franchise locations and employ 19,000 workers
– as large businesses simply because they operate as
part of a franchise network.
“In reality, these are small, locally-owned businesses
that should be given the extra time to plan for the wage
increase – just like all other small businesses in Se-
attle,” Caldeira said.
IFA has argued that this discrimination violates the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because 96
percent of the franchises operating in Seattle are affili-
ated with an interstate commerce network.
IFA Supports Congressional Action to
Disapprove of NLRB “Ambush”
Election Rules
International Franchise Association Executive Vice
President, Government Relations & Public Policy Rob-
ert Cresanti issued the following statement on the
passage of Senate Joint Resolution 8, a resolution dis-
approving new union election rules from the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB):
“IFA applauds the House for taking a stand against
out-of-control regulators by passing S.J. Res. 8 to dis-
approve of the NLRB’s new “ambush” election proce-
dures. We sincerely hope that the President will recon-
sider his position on this resolution. Approved by both
chambers of Congress, this resolution is a sharp con-
trast to the unelected bureaucrats at the Board who
have promulgated rules that defy the basic principles
of democratic elections.”
The final rules, released by the NLRB in December
2014, effectively deny employees’ access to critical in-
formation about unions, trample on employee privacy
rights in a legally-mandated “opt-in” scenario and strip
employers of free speech and due process rights.
FRANCHISE
