In recent weeks, as support for the bipartisan American Franchise Act (AFA) has grown (119 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives as of early May), familiar attacks from opponents of franchising small businesses have re-emerged. Case in point – a recent AFL-CIO letter that dubbed the commonsense legislation, “anti-worker, anti-union, and anti-small business.”

The unfortunate reality is that the AFL-CIO wants to end franchising to amass more political power. As former SEIU President Mary Kay Henry acknowledged publicly in 2022, the long term-objective of the SEIU is to end the franchise model altogether.

Why? Because shifting to a broader joint employer standard makes it easier to unionize national brands, versus individual franchise locations, increasing union dues in the process. But make no mistake, the data shows that franchise workers earn higher wages and have greater access to health insurance, vacation, holiday, and sick leave than non-franchise workers.

To advance their agenda, these labor groups have pushed to expand joint employer standards at the federal and state levels – most successfully at the NLRB in 2015 and 2021, when AFL-CIO and SEIU lead a partisan effort to expand federal joint employer standards, and in California in 2023. The 2015 rule alone cost small businesses $33 billion per year and resulted in the loss of 376,000 job opportunities nationwide, and the persistent threat of frivolous joint employer litigation continues to discourage brands from expanding benefits and support, including anti-human trafficking training and other best practices for workers.

Franchisees are pillars of their communities – employing millions of Americans, supporting local charities, and a growing pathway for small business ownership and wealth creation at a time of economic uncertainty and amidst rapid technological change, especially from AI.

Consider the facts:

• Eighty-five percent of franchise owners live in the communities where they operate their businesses. Their employees are their friends and their neighbors.
• Sixty-four percent of franchisees are first-time business owners that are building generational wealth to pass along to their children.
• Historically underrepresented groups such as veterans, women, and people of color generate higher income through the franchise model.
• Franchised businesses are more likely to be minority-owned than non-franchised businesses.
• The franchise model is a proven path to the American Dream for people from all walks of life who want to go into business for themselves but not by themselves.

To be clear: the American Franchise Act is not a free pass for bad actors. It does not change the National Labor Relations Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act with regarding to organizing or workers’ rights. Workers retain the right to organize. Employers who violate wage and hour laws remain accountable. And if a franchisor exerts direct control over employment decisions—such as wages, benefits, or scheduling—it can still be deemed a joint employer under the bill.

Ironically, by opposing a targeted bipartisan bill to codify a joint employer standard for franchising, union leaders are lobbying against the interests of the workers and small businesses they claim to support, by undermining local ownership in favor of more centralized, corporate control of businesses.

Lawmakers should reject the false choice between supporting workers and supporting franchising. By supporting the AFA, Members of Congress can do both—stand with the small business engine in their communities while protecting worker rights. That is what this debate is truly about, and why the American Franchise Act continues to gain bipartisan support despite recycled arguments from those who would benefit from the franchise model’s demise.