The restaurant industry in California has been my life ever since my father immigrated here 31 years ago and saved every penny to open his first Burger King franchise in Santa Ana. Since then, we’ve worked hard to grow our family business to 21 locations, providing opportunities for our 500 employees. Our story is the epitome of the American Dream and a powerful reminder of the opportunity the franchise business model provides.

But our dream, as well as those of countless other small business owners in California, is under attack by pending legislation – AB 257, the so-called Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, which is scheduled to be heard Tuesday morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As I franchisee, I am responsible for day-to-day decisions in the same way my non-franchised neighboring business owners are. Hiring, pay, leave and benefits – these decisions cross my desk every day. If enacted, AB 257 would take these decisions out of my hands and instead empower an unelected and unaccountable council of political appointees to determine policies for my employees.

Under AB 257, my brand would have no choice but to have a role in decisions for my business, essentially relegating me to middle management. That’s not why my father became a franchisee and certainly not why I left a career in marketing to join and grow our family business. Other California businesses like mine would not have to shoulder this burden. AB 257 would unlevel my playing field simply based on my business being a franchise.

To make matters worse, this measure will lead to higher costs for me as a business owner, at a time we’re already struggling with increased costs and worrying about how we’ll keep our doors open. For many, additional costs would be passed along to customers at a time when inflation is at a 40-year high and families are struggling to put food on the table, gas in their car and keep a roof over their heads.

The bill’s proponents cited inferior working conditions in the counter-service restaurant space as the reason they’re pushing AB 257. However, the state’s own data does not support that rationale. I care about the welfare of workers in my industry, which is why I follow all labor, wage and health laws set forth by the state.

If proponents are concerned about counter-service industry employees, they wouldn’t be pushing for the creation of an entity with no enforcement powers. They would instead be urging the Legislature to fully fund, rather than slash the budget, of the Department of Industrial Relations and would be imploring the state to fill vacancies and speed up the review of cases.

I am a proponent of full enforcement of the laws we have on the books, which are the strongest in the country. When others in the industry flout the law, it’s a disservice to the rest of us who take our jobs and responsibility to care for our employees seriously.

As a female business owner, it is important to highlight the franchise business model affords women and minorities a higher rate of business ownership, nearly 30%, as compared to non-franchised small businesses with women ownership rates closer to 17%. This business model has allowed me to take what my father started and grow it into the business I have today.

Related Articles

The proponents of AB 257 would have you believe small business owners exploit their employees in the effort to make a few extra bucks. In reality, the small-business owners I know are just like me – behind the cash register every day, partnering with our diverse employees to better their lives and provide them with opportunities to grow.

I hope the Legislature and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee see AB 257 for what it really is – the wrong measure at the wrong time for small business owners, their employees and California consumers.

Sanna Shere is a Southern California small business owner.