1. United States
2. Mo.
3. Letter

I urge your to strongly oppose and vote "No" on HB1644 (Overcast) and SB1363 (Schroer). This legislation is presented as a measure to provide clarity for small businesses, but its actual effect is to create a broad liability shield for multinational corporations. Under this bill, franchisors would be exempt from responsibility for workplace conditions unless they exercise "direct and immediate control" over specific employment actions. This standard ignores the reality of modern franchise relationships, where franchisors maintain extensive control through binding contracts, operational manuals, and brand standards while avoiding the legal obligations that should accompany such control. The practical consequences of this bill extend beyond routine employment disputes. Consider the role of hotel chains in immigration enforcement. In recent years, major hotel franchisors such as Marriott and Hilton have contracted with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to house individuals in detention conditions that advocates and international observers have condemned as human rights abuses. When franchisors enter into these arrangements, they dictate the terms: room blocks, security protocols, staff procedures. Yet under this legislation, if a franchisee's employees are compelled to participate in operations that facilitate rights abuses, or if working conditions deteriorate as a result of these contracts, the corporate franchisor would be shielded from accountability. The local franchisee, bound by the franchise agreement to accept these contracts, would bear sole liability while the corporation that approved the arrangement and profited from it faces no consequences. This bill similarly insulates corporate leadership from responsibility for systemic wage violations, harassment, or unsafe conditions that arise from franchisor-mandated policies. When a fast-food corporation like requires specific staffing levels or scheduling practices that result in wage theft, or when a hotel chain's mandatory training proves inadequate to prevent harassment, the executives who designed these systems remain protected. It's no surprise McDonald's lobbyists have stated this is an "incredibly important piece of legislation." Twenty-one other states have enacted similar laws, which does not demonstrate wisdom but rather the effectiveness of corporate lobbying. Missouri should not follow this path. Workers deserve recourse against the entities with actual power over their working conditions and the resources to provide meaningful remedies. This bill removes that recourse. We urge the committee to reject it.