A recent op-ed in the Labor Tribune falsely claims that a major bipartisan labor bill moving through Congress will “make life less affordable” and leave workers vulnerable. These claims rest on a misunderstanding of both the bill and the “joint employer” standard it addresses.
The bill in question is the American Franchise Act, introduced by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), which would provide long-overdue certainty for local franchise owners and their employees. It currently has over 100 cosponsors, including 16 House Democrats, making it a bill that clearly cuts through the partisan divide.
In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has attempted to expand the “joint employer” standard to make both franchisors and franchisees liable for the same workers. For local owners, that blurs the clear line of responsibility that has always made the franchise model work so well. Instead of having the freedom to make their own decisions about hiring, training, and running their day-to-day operations, franchisees are left facing legal uncertainty. That confusion doesn’t just weigh on business owners—it trickles down to employees too, who lose the stability and clarity that come with working for a locally run business.
Completely upending this long established standard has thrown this important industry into uncertainty. That’s bad news for the nearly 500,000 franchise businesses that employ almost 10 million Americans. The 2015 version of the rule cost franchise businesses over $33 billion annually, eliminated 376,000 job opportunities, and triggered a 93% spike in lawsuits. This diminished economic activity also hurts taxpayers through lower revenues, and, in turn, higher government deficits.
Since then, it has been a seesaw of policies that has changed whenever the political party controlling the White House has changed. Thankfully, the American Franchise Act provides clarity by codifying a straightforward joint employer standard: a franchisor may only be considered a joint employer if it possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms of employment. It delivers as much clarity and certainty to employers as it does to employees.
The authors of the Tribune piece argue that the AFA will make workers’ lives more expensive. That’s not true. Instead, it will keep more blue collar workers on the job and ensure they have a well-earned paycheck.
The op-ed claims the AFA would “weaken” joint employer rules. In reality, the legislation largely codifies the existing standard adopted by the National Labor Relations Board in 2020, requiring “direct and immediate control” over key employment terms for joint liability. Let’s not forget that labor laws still apply to franchises, so they are still responsible for ensuring a safe working environment and abiding by wage theft laws. None of that changes with the AFA.
The American Franchise Act does not strip workers of protections or make them more vulnerable. It clarifies who is responsible for employment decisions, preserves liability where real control exists, and stabilizes a legal standard that has become increasingly politicized. Good on Congressman Hern and his colleagues for leading this legislation. The sooner it passes the House and Senate, the better it will be for America’s workers, no matter what the opposition claims.