You're looking for a business with exactly 500 employees? Huh?

If the 500 plus employees counts franchises that means a HUGE amount of what looks like small businesses (Quizno's, McDonald's, Subway ect) are all going to have to meet the shorter phase in period. A franchised business basically gets the "business model" in exchange for a big upfront investment and significant royalty fees. Usually the owners are rookie business people and are barely getting by. And the franchise agreements typically don't let a franchisee make the kind of adjustments in pricing or staffing to cushion the increased labor. This plan will make it impossible for most franchisees in Seattle to operate their businesses.

I think of Pagliacci more as a small business than a fast-food chain, but you're the expert opinionator Ansel, so fast-food chain it is.

There are likely many seasonal businesses - like farms, canneries, etc, that could fluctuate up to 500 people but are nominally like 100-200.

But in general 500 employees is NOT a small business. That is insane.

The overwhelming majority of businesses in this country are under 50-100 people.

I run a business of 5-8 people. It's absolutely insulting be placed in the same category as somebody with 500 employees. It's not even the same universe.

@2 It depends if those employees are actually included as employees of McDonalds or Subway under this plan. I'm not sure about that. They could be considered employees of XYZ Franchise Inc that owns three Subway locations employing a total of 40 people.

@2 Then it looks like those multi-billion dollar profit takers on the corporate level will have to restructure how much they take from their franchisers in Seattle, won't it?

Can anyone name a small business with 200 people??? I mean 500 is ridiculous, so don't start there, ask about smaller numbers, and let's get this more sensible.

A lot of midsize and large businesses are run by people who think of themselves as running "small" businesses because they are smaller than Wal-Mart. It's a uniquely American phenomenon, similar to when people who make $100,000 a year still think of themselves as "middle class." In the US, a small business is generally one with fewer than 250 employees. (The EU defines a small business as fewer than 50.)

Look for nomenclature to be updated from "sandwich artist" to "sandwich consultant."

Zillow has a market cap of 4B and 500 employees.

Everyone getting their underwear in a bunch over franchises- its not the legal hurtle you think it is. The Sick Paid Leave Ordinance was able to clear it, and with similar language, both the mayor's proposal and Sawant's will as well.

Meinert says that Lost Lake alone employs 115 people. With his several restaurants, he might be at or around 500.

What are you even asking?

Do you want a definition of "small business" or do you want to find a place of employment that has exactly 500 employees...what?

Just about any restaurant around town has *less* that 500 employees, small, independently owned shops...

Or are you looking for an example of something that sounds "business-y" but has few employees? Like Cheezburger or some other startup? They are not really paying minimum there, anyway.

Be specific and you might get help.

The better question is:
Name the Seattle businesses with 250-500 employees?

(The follow-up question being:
Then why make "500" instead of "250"?)

@2 - I wonder, is there any precedence for this being a legal distinction to make?

Big Fish Games is right over 500 (500-600).

I think the question is, "Can you name a company in Seattle that you consider to be a small business and that employees 500 or more people?"

Good point about Pagliacci's. When it comes to McDonald's, I think of it as more of a fast-food chain than a big business.

I know that there are a number of small (20 -200 person) engineering firms that make dam good money, but employ a small number of lower wage staff (answering phones, running errands, janitorial work) Seems like they are going to be in a weird spot, though hopefully market forces can help them out. Because capitalism works that way lol.

@2,

Most franchises require new franchise owners to demonstrate a net worth of several million dollars just to get in on that action. Wendy's, for example, requires $5 million. How about we not cry over multimillionaires?

How can a fast food chain not be a business? I think you need to spend some time with the dictionary and work on what these basic terms mean. Terms like "business" and how "small" relates to "large"

Once you get a grip on basic English, then ask the big questions. (and before some pedantic asshole corrects my english let me remind you that I am not working for a newspaper)

Oberto?

"Fast food restaurant" is a type of business; "small business" is a size of business; "Seattle business" is a place of business. These are separate categories that sometimes, but not always, overlap. Fast food can be served at a local small business - I'm thinking, Ezel's Fried Chicken or Spuds.

@22-The really big franchisors require franchisees to have significant personal wealth (that usually includes houses, retirement savings ect) but roughly a third of all small businesses in this country are franchise and the vast majority of franchisors require much less and allow the net worth to the aggregate of a group of franchisee investors (Mama, papa and the kids for example.
@6-I spend 40 hours a week dealing with franchisors and they are unlikely to "restructure" anything to benefit a franchisee. If a subway franchisee goes under the franchisor gets to take over the lease and sell the location to another franchisee who pays another big franchise investment fee. There's an incentive to flip franchisees.
@ 5 and 16-I hope the final results counts employees based the number of employees of the franchisee (say Joe's sandwiches LLC) rather than the franchisor (subway). It would catch the true "big time" franchisees and let the small fry go. That is the typical way courts treat the question now but there are many many law review articles on the topic.
I worry about franchises because I work with franchisees. These people have invested everything and are frequently working without pay because they got screwed by the same big corporations that are screwing the rest of the 99%. I resent the corporations and private equity firms taking the lion's share and letting the rest of us fight over the crumbs.

@27, I will not shed a single tear if this drives a few franchise fast-food joints out of business.

I would be perfectly happy if every single fast food chain restaurant were burned to the ground, and replaced by real independent restaurants. With very few exceptions they serve terrible, high calorie, high fat food, treat their employees like absolute shit, and siphon almost all the profits out of the local area. Good riddance to them all.

@5 They are.

Uber. Lyft. Etc.

BECU ?

What is the definition of 'small business' anyway?

If only google and the small business administration could answer this very tough question. Maybe you could call the refedence desk at the library. They might be able to answer it for you.

There is no universal definition, any more than there is a universal definition of small penis. Every jurisdiction, regulation, or program defines it in whatever way suits their purposes.

The purpose here is to placate the FUD that "small" businesses can't pay a living wage, while "big" business somehow can. The belief that $15/hr will cause businesses below a certain size to go under, while those above a certain size can afford it. If it were as simple as that, then it's proof that small business is an inefficient, unjust mode and should be allowed to die in favor of larger businesses that can (somehow) work equitably for all workers.

So don't expect the number of employees --whether it's 500 or 200 or 10 -- to make sense. The premise of this cutoff is faulty and so any number they derive from the faulty premise will stink of gamesmanship.

The reality is that better businesses, those that are smart, or just lucky enough to have hit on the magic business model and product for the market at this moment in time, tend to express their success by growing. That leads to a world where there is a correlation between size and deep pockets. While the smaller they are, they more they struggle and the less room there is to pay higher wages. Size doesn't cause deep pockets. A well-run business results in both growth and large profits. Poorly run business, or those that are a poor fit for the market, stay small and have no money to spare.

Not all small businesses are like that: those are the ones destined to grow. And whatever size they are, they clear profits at a rate that should allow them to pay a living wage. And -- most importantly -- the ones that are not good businesses are not going to grow, and if you magically scaled them up to any size, be it 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 employees, they won't have the money to pay a living wage. They were going to die soon anyway and the minimum wage increase only hastens the inevitable.

The reason these dead small businesses don't leave unemployment in their wake is that somebody else jumps into that market niche and puts people to work. Because the Seattle economy has wealth to spend and the demand for services is there. Hence the ability of the Seattle economy to support a living wage. Nobody until now had the balls to do it, that's all.

Here, look, the Census has some numbers:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tabl…

That's 1,096,838 employees of 500+employee firms out of 2,429,182 for the state of Washington in 2007. Or, 45%. Couldn't find data for Seattle, King County, or Seattle Metro area.

I'll tell you what a business that employees 500 isn't… and that's a small business. Even under Obamacare, a small business is defined as having less than 50 employees.

@33 Christ. What load of Libertarian market driven horse shit.

You have just invalidated everything you ever said about interfering in the market to raise minimum wage. I mean fuck those poor low wage people, right? If they can't move on up to a growing business and make more money, right? Must be their personal poor "business model."

It's the same stupid market forces argument.