It is understandable why so many franchises fight wage increases, benefits increases, etc.

They have established a competitive landscape and business model that depends on low, low wages.

I read an article last week that in Denmark, the average pay at Burger King is $20/hr with full health benefits. So, people pay more for burgers.

That is true across all the food franchises, so there is no competitive disadvantage to paying employees a living wage.

I have also wondered at times if in the US a lot of the franchisor pressure against health care is really a concern about royalties.

If the franchisee pays more for employee health care that means they may have less available to pay royalties. There is no way to know what is motivating HQ folks, but I wonder if that has a lot to do with things.

Franchising is a great business model. It can work even when employees aren't paid the minimum wage, and even when franchisees are treated more transparently.

Australia recently made changes to its Franchise code that should reduce some abuse of franchisors. I read a lot of submissions by people to the Franchise-Info columns. I appreciate they are stuck within a mental framework requiring pay and transparency must fall to the lowest common denominator.

If people opened up to different possibilities the industry could still thrive and would have a better reputation with potentially less conflicts.

Stu Levin, founder of the Franchise Wealth Academy, helps franchise owners to stop the financial bleeding and regain control of their lives by helping them decide, usually in 30 days or less, whether to fix the franchise or find a more personally profitable path.

Authors

Archives

Search for Articles

Follow Us