Wednesday
September
17
2014
6:36 am
Weather

  Home
  Local News
  State / National / World
  Sports
  Opinion / Letters
  Business
  Arts / Entertainment
  Lifestyle
  Obituaries
  Calendar
  Submit Event
  Comics / Games
  Classifieds
  DJ Designers
  Archives
  Advertise With Us
  About Us
 
 
 
 

Check out our archive of Dining Guides - Yum!

Assembly passes bill expanding franchisee rights
August 15, 2014, 05:00 AM By Fenit Nirappil The Associated

SACRAMENTO — A bill that generated spirited debate over the leverage corporations such as McDonald’s and Subway can hold over their franchise owners narrowly passed the Assembly on Thursday.

SB610 would make it harder for corporations to cancel franchise agreements and would add requirements that must be met when a franchisee’s business is sold. The debate spilling across party lines is fueled by intense lobbying from two sides: unions teaming up with franchisees, and business groups that say restricting corporate control could lead to lower food standards, dirty bathrooms and closed stores.

The legislation strikes at the balance of power between franchisees that profit from the reputation of major brands that in turn mandate how businesses are operated. It heads to the Senate after passing on a 41-27 vote, the minimum needed.

The bill authored by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, was inspired by stories of small-business owners who say they had their livelihoods taken away.

“Franchise agreements are so one-sided,” Kathryn Carter, who runs a McDonald’s restaurant in Daly City, said in a statement. “Franchisees have virtually no say in the businesses we’ve risked our life savings and dedicated years of our lives to build.”

The bill creates a higher standard for canceling a franchise agreement early, which supporters say gives them the same rights during contract disputes as other businesses in California. At least eight other states, including Connecticut and Nebraska, have a similar standard in place, according to Jackson’s office.

Other provisions would protect franchisees from having their business sold or transferred with little notice.

Opponents of the bill say the state shouldn’t meddle in private contracts, arguing that the existing system works to protect internationally recognized brands from rogue business owners.

“They go into that field as a franchisee with their eyes open,” said Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. “We are not talking here about contracts that are convoluted and written in lots of legalese that they can’t understand.”

The International Franchise Association says it will continue its fight against the bill, which has included Web videos saying the bill undermines California’s economic recovery.

“This bill without question will undermine franchise growth in California, lead to frivolous, unnecessary and costly litigation, reduced product quality, harm brand integrity,” Steve Caldeira, the organization’s president and CEO, said in a statement.

They will be challenged by powerful worker groups, including the Service Employees International Union which has been organizing fast-food worker strikes across the U.S.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, noted that franchisees are also limited in what they can pay workers under existing regimes.

“We are talking about small businesses ... who have been under the thumb of master corporations,” said Gonzalez, a longtime labor advocate. “There is something fundamentally wrong with the relationship as we accept it.”

———

Fenit Nirappil can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/FenitN

 

 

Tags: franchise, business, franchisees, businesses, their, would,


Other stories from today:

Coca-Cola bets on energy drinks with Monster stake
What happens to bonds when everyone aims to sell?
Assembly passes bill expanding franchisee rights
 

 
Print this Page Print this Page  |  Bookmark and Share
<< Back
 
Return To Archives
 
  


 
 
 
Daily Journal Quick Poll
 
How important is it that your food is organic?

Extremely important
Important
Somewhat important
Not important
In my house, organic; elsewhere, who cares?

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
©2014 San Mateo Daily Journal
South San Francisco newspaper