Fast Food's Unexpected Bipartisan Break
A new bipartisan bill aims to protect franchisors from punishment for their franchisees’ actions, signaling rare unity on economic freedom.
After years of fast-food restaurants being in progressive crosshairs—facing everything from new labor laws to attempts to ban drive-thrus—there may be a beacon of hope on the horizon in the form of an unexpectedly bipartisan bill in Congress.
One of the most dire threats fast-food joints face is the push to revise joint employer standards for the industry. This change would make parent franchisors liable for the legal violations of individual franchisee outlets, threatening the entire franchise business model. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued rules specifying that a joint employer relationship was created whenever two business entities shared or codetermined the terms and conditions of employment for workers.
Even indirect control over health or workplace standards could trigger a joint employer designation. Democrats argued that the new rules were necessary to ensure that parent companies were not unfairly ducking liability for labor law violations of their franchisees.
During President Donald Trump's first administration, the NLRB overturned the Obama-era rules, but that decision was reversed again during Biden's term. In 2023, the rules were challenged in federal court, resulting in the Biden administration withdrawing its appeal of the joint employer rule decision and abandoning the effort to change the rules. It's expected that a future Democratic administration would seek to return the joint employer rules to the Obama/Biden standards.
However, a recent bill introduced in the House of Representatives in September—the American Franchise Act—has attracted unprecedented bipartisan support to clarify that franchisors and franchisees are legally distinct businesses.
The bill would clarify that franchisors are only joint employers if they exercise "direct and immediate" control over issues such as wages, hiring, safety rules, or benefits. Critically, the bill safeguards against efforts to dilute "direct and immediate" control in ways that effectively convert it to indirect control.
The legislation has attracted 39 cosponsors in the House, including 13 Democrats. And the Democratic cosponsors are not merely swing-district moderates, but even some from congressional districts that lean heavily blue, such as Rep. Ami Bera (D–Calif.), Rep. Troy Carter (D–La.), and Rep. Hillary J. Scholten (D–Mich.).
This bipartisan support stands in marked contrast to previous congressional votes involving joint employer standards. A 2023 Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the Biden-era rules broke almost exactly along partisan lines, excluding some usual crossover senators, such as then-Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.). At the state level, the issue has also been largely partisan, with blue states like California and New York considering their own versions of joint liability laws for franchises.
The potential sea change in Democratic support is long overdue, given that franchise owners are among the most diverse business owners of any sector. Nearly 30 percent of franchise outlets are minority-owned, compared to just 18 percent of businesses overall. These owners embody a meritocratic and multiethnic slice of urban and suburban America, united by a shared pursuit of the American dream.
Notably, franchise outlets have also become increasingly crucial hubs of civil society across America, serving as venues for local residents to host a range of activities, from study groups to book clubs to gaming groups. Such cornerstones of American life deserve bipartisan support.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
If only congress would do it's main job and pass an actual set of budget bills, instead of meddling in minutia.
Oh, wait; no "problem" to small . . .
Shouldn't we be talking Epstein? Who's the #1 guy mentioned in the Epstein emails? Oh yeah that's right, Donnie small hands. Who's the guy Epstein said is dirty, borderline insane, and evil beyond belief? Yup it's Donnie. Epstein had loads of dirt on Donnie and it's finally starting to come out.
But will that turn cultists against Donnie? Of course not! Now we're starting to hear the talking points that screwing those girls was not actually bad after all. Epstein did nothing wrong. Cultists are being reprogrammed.
And at the same time we're hearing how bad it is that Big Willie stuck his big willie in teen poon. Because as Sarc says, it's all about who, not what. When Donnie does it, he's a player. When Big Willie does it, he's a sicko. Hilarious.
Fake story, bro.
Somehow, all your citations to named, reliable, verifiable sources fell off the post.
Could you please re-post with the citations?
Thank you.
The epstein who was working with the NYT and democrats even during live hearings?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/14/epstein-text-messages-cohen-house-hearing/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=bluesky,facebook,threads,twitter&utm_medium=social
The epstein who flew clinton, Hoffman, and other democrats to his island?
Nothing has come out about trump except for witness testimony clearing him and democrats like Wolff begging epstein to tarnish him. So far 3 easily proven false stories.
But as a leftist retard, you think this is winning messaging shrike. Lies and narratives. It is honestly pathetic. Sadly expected.
I would think, in a functional judicial system, that degree of culpability would be left to each jury.