By Jesse Keyser on February 23, 2026
It’s common to hear complaints about politics and politicians, and often for good reason. People get tired of the gridlock and partisanship.
But when elected officials do the right thing, they deserve credit, too. Right now, there is something special brewing in both Jefferson City and Washington, D.C. – especially for those of us in the franchise community.
After a decade of regulatory ping pong, our leaders (in the State House and U.S. Capitol) are working hard to bring certainty to an issue called “joint employer.”
Joint employer defines the relationship between franchisors—brands providing systems and support—and franchisees like me, who replicate the original idea, run the day-to-day operations and everything else that goes into small business ownership. Think of joint employer as the rules of the road.
When joint employer rules are clear and narrow, focusing on “direct” control over essential terms like hiring, firing, and pay, the independence that makes franchising thrive is preserved and protected. Franchisees are free to invest, innovate, and hire without fear of meddling from a corporate overlord.
When joint employer rules are expanded to include “indirect” or even “reserved” control, the autonomy and independence between franchisors and franchisees break down. The system collapses, and workers, consumers and entrepreneurs pay the price. The last era of federal expanded joint employer cost franchised businesses $33.3 billion per year, resulted in 376,000 lost job opportunities, and led to 93% more lawsuits.
Perhaps even worse than the wrong standard is the uncertainty that comes with a constantly changing set of rules. In recent years, joint employer has shifted faster than a roller coaster.
Read the entire article in the Missouri Times HERE.