Posted on 01/28/2016 11:58:21 AM PST by Citizen Zed
Edited on 01/28/2016 1:13:09 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The International Franchise Association, the industry's largest trade group, wants the Supreme Court to take up its challenge to portions of Seattle's $15 minimum wage law.
Seattle's City Council in June 2014 voted to raise the minimum wage in increments, hitting $15 an hour by 2017 for businesses with at least 500 staffers. The $15 level is more than double the federal hourly minimum of $7.25. The International Franchise Association and five Seattle franchisees quickly sued Seattle, which like New York City has moved to treat smaller franchised businesses like larger companies.
I would put in machines to take and prepare orders, and recruit people with engineering or computer science majors or degrees at 25-30 dollars an hour to staff it.
I would relocate my business and force the Seattlunatics to travel to a civilized country if they want to eat.
If I remember correctly, workplaces with unionized workers are exempt, as a way to “encourage” non-union shops to unionize.
Forgetting about the wisdom of the minimum wage, which the franchisees don’t challenge:
I don’t see much interesting on the issue of treating franchises as if they were larger firms. Plainly, they can do the same work as a local business with fewer employees because so many business functions are provided by the larger corporation. So while it’s debatable whether it’s a good move, there is certainly a basis for including franchises as larger, non-exempt firms.
But the issue of discriminating against interstate commerce is more interesting, if it can be demonstrated that THAT’S why the exemption exists for small business and why it’s not applied to franchises. Mind you, that contradicts the first assertion. But a court finding that a tax or regulation must be evenly applied absent a legitimate state interest would be very interesting. I would LOVE if the courts would strike down tax-breaks for relocating firms.
No government has any right to set a minimum or maximum hourly pay rate.
Now THAT is something that should be challenged under the doctrine of discrimation in the application of regulations.
Automate. Poof. No jobs.
How you likey dat, progressive white boy?
One possible solution would be to max the staff at 490 personnel. If you have several corporations that conglomerate, re-organize them to accomodate smaller staff sections but creating competencies under different incorporations.
They cannot survive, which is the purpose of this.
But there are still two tiers. They are just at the same value. Isn’t gov great?
Has a “minimum wage” itself ever been taken to the supreme court?
Once you allow the gov to set the rate, they will set it.
I hate the fact that these frickin robed demigods can announce months in advance that they will condescend to hear a case. And that’s suppose to be a step in the process.
Well, if I'm not mistaken, that signals the parties that it's time to get their latest ducks in a row. And it's time for others to prepare and send in their briefs.
So, it is a necessary step in the process.
The real minimum wage is $0. The higher the official wage, the more people will be earning the real minimum wage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.