Odd Lots · Friday, July 24, 2026
The conversation delves into the legal battles of the mid-20th century where franchisors strategically shaped laws to enable their business model. Brian Calachi explains how they successfully argued for treatment as single entities for antitrust purposes while simultaneously claiming separation from labor laws, a strategy that has since been adopted by gig economy companies.
“But the anti trust body of law was it's sort of like you know, nineteenth century anti monopoly idea of you know, like there's like meaning to being like owning a business, you know, owning your own farm or you know, employment is like you can't have a democratic society where people are taking commands from someone else. So the anti trust course through the mid nineteen seventies are still enforcing that.”
“Absolutely, So there's another A few years before the hearing I just mentioned, the Teamsters union was trying to organize gas station attendance and they sent their guy to testify, and he complained about this. You called it double barrel immunity. You know, so you know, when you're going to anti trust courts, you tell them that you are a single entity. So it's like logically impossible for you to violate the anti trust laws because that requires a conspiracy, you know, two people have to agree. But at the same time, when we try to organize your workers, you say no, you know, the labor laws don't apply. They are a totally separate company. They have nothing to do with this.”
“Franchisors in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies, you know, don't like the antitrust jurisprudence that says you can't control independent businesses through I don't know if I've used this term yet about vertical restraints is like the term of our and anti trust for that. So they go about filing cases to you know, a very concerted, very smart, strategic effort to change the law.”