But not so fast Batman.
The city managed to to exempt non franchise businesses from the immediate increase.
Why?
If the purpose of this law was to help working class people be able to support themselves are you not saying that their services for a non franchise business is less valuable than a franchise business?
Of course, the people who enacted this law showed their understanding of business acumen with some of these quotes...........
At a recent hearing, City Councilmember Kshama Sawant said franchise owners can afford to pay workers more. “In order to be a franchisee, you need to be very, very wealthy," she said.
Really? For every wealthy McDonald's owner there's a Subway, Kinko', Penn Station, Shell oil franchisee who used their life savings to purchase their franchise.
In addition, most franchisees are required to pay the franchisor fees in the range of 7% of their sales. On top of that, most franchises have to pay 1-2% of their sales go to pay for an Ad-coop. So when you buy that $5.00 footlong nearly 50 cents are paid out before another vendor gets a dime.
But that's OK, because the mayor shows his abject ignorance as well.
“They are part of a larger, national corporate monopoly that is very, very different than individual business owners,” Murray said.
Monopoly?
In addition to the franchise clause, companies with fewer than 500 employees are exampt for seven years versus three for larger firms.
So how is it that if you are the 499th employee at a company, Seattle has determined that your value is less than the 501st employee of a different company?
Seattle has set the bar in defying the cost/benefit principle that's been around since this first econ 101 class began.
Anyone want to make a wager on what the unemployment rate does between now and full implementation?
No comments:
Post a Comment