The NLRB ruling cannot be allowed to stand. The franchiser can put all the rules in place it wants but it is up to the independent business owner to follow (or not follow) them. How can anyone possibly think this is a good idea?
From an insurance perspective, which of the agent’s carriers will be held responsible for the employment conditions at an agency? All of them?
If it’s an independent agency, none of the carriers. If it’s a captive agency, the parent company.
I have mixed feelings on this issue, but in the case of fast food franchises that are beholden to the parent company to do everything according to the company manual to achieve product uniformity, I don’t see labor issues, particularly violations, being any different. The parent company shouldn’t be able to shield itself from labor issues by virtue of a franchise agreement.
The NLRB ruling cannot be allowed to stand. The franchiser can put all the rules in place it wants but it is up to the independent business owner to follow (or not follow) them. How can anyone possibly think this is a good idea?
From an insurance perspective, which of the agent’s carriers will be held responsible for the employment conditions at an agency? All of them?
If it’s an independent agency, none of the carriers. If it’s a captive agency, the parent company.
I have mixed feelings on this issue, but in the case of fast food franchises that are beholden to the parent company to do everything according to the company manual to achieve product uniformity, I don’t see labor issues, particularly violations, being any different. The parent company shouldn’t be able to shield itself from labor issues by virtue of a franchise agreement.