I think it is wrong for someone to be able to hold the Franchise responsible if an owner in some remote area is not following the law and does something illegal or harmful to another person.
better wages
safer working conditions
minimum pay
minimum age requirements
valid insurance
yeah, d*mn that union agenda
December 18, 2017 at 1:33 pm
maqui says:
Like or Dislike:
8
6
Perhaps you’re right, but I find it ironic that the franchise can have so much control and authority over how each of the owner/operators prepare the food, what products they’re authorized to use, how the store and employees look to the most exact detail. But when it comes to the treatment of the employee, it’s a hands-off nothing to do with that one.
Maqui, that is not true. The Franchise has written documentation on just about everything, including training and treatment of staff, including HR handbooks and rules. They want to build and protect a reputation. That is why it is unfair to hold the Franchise responsible for one rogue owner.
December 19, 2017 at 9:20 am
Fair Playing Field says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
This is a sound and just ruling.
If a franchise has “direct and immediate” control over working conditions, it’s a joint employer. If it doesn’t, it’s not.
This puts flexibility back into the labor laws without hurting employee protection, and that’s good for entrepreneurship in our economy. It’s already been said, but a franchise has a vested interest in protecting its name and reputation.
Holding franchises responsible for all actions of its franchisees would ultimately drastically increase the cost of entry for a franchisee (read: small business), if not kill the business model completely.
Anything that curtails union activity or protection is a huge plus for the US economy. Unions are remnants of the Mob. They are responsible for the election and destruction of Bozo Brown and his slug train to nowhere. You need look no further than to his administration to see how deleterious the unions have been in CA.
Not sure how this will effect PEO’s including ADP & Paychecks that have taken away many workers’ compensation policies from insurance agents including how they will effect 1099 workers.
I think it is funny how some unions are no longer useful but have brainwashed their members into thinking they are. Take the school teachers’ union. Teachers pay a big monthly dues that include their medical benefits. However, because of the unions, teachers have lost their individuality within the school system. They are no longer judged as an individual, they are judged as a group. So a real good teacher will get a 3% increase and the real crappy teacher will also get the 3% increase in pay. Not fair. They know it, but they don’t see it because the unions make them think that they would’ve gotten less without them. Truth is if they dumped the union, their dues would pay for their medical and they would pocket the rest.
Unions don’t prevent layoffs. If a company cannot afford to pay workers, then they cannot afford to pay workers. Unless the union is loaning or giving the company money to continue paying employees, then they can say they delay layoffs.
Merry Christmas to all who can’t afford to celebrate Christmas.
Unions prevent layoffs and make sure employees have a say in how the company operates. A lone employee is an ant to a company executive. Been looking for a job for months, applying to anything and everything, no luck, no Christmas for my kids.
It’s a shame someone disliked your comment. I can read the pain you are feeling. You would think you could get some “thoughts and prayers” from the conservatives in the crowd. They are really good with that talking point. I hope you land on your feet sooner than later. It must be so difficult not to be able to deliver Santa to your kids on Christmas. So sorry!
I have personally seen two fairly good sized companies struck by unions with unreasonable demands and after several months of picketing, the companies went out of business entirely. What did the unions gain by not being reasonable? There is just so much money in the till and when it is no longer feasible, the company just shuts down. As I said, unions have outlived their usefulness.
Yay!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I think it is wrong for someone to be able to hold the Franchise responsible if an owner in some remote area is not following the law and does something illegal or harmful to another person.
I think it is wrong for unions to hold businesses hostage to the union agenda.
better wages
safer working conditions
minimum pay
minimum age requirements
valid insurance
yeah, d*mn that union agenda
Perhaps you’re right, but I find it ironic that the franchise can have so much control and authority over how each of the owner/operators prepare the food, what products they’re authorized to use, how the store and employees look to the most exact detail. But when it comes to the treatment of the employee, it’s a hands-off nothing to do with that one.
Maqui, that is not true. The Franchise has written documentation on just about everything, including training and treatment of staff, including HR handbooks and rules. They want to build and protect a reputation. That is why it is unfair to hold the Franchise responsible for one rogue owner.
This is a sound and just ruling.
If a franchise has “direct and immediate” control over working conditions, it’s a joint employer. If it doesn’t, it’s not.
This puts flexibility back into the labor laws without hurting employee protection, and that’s good for entrepreneurship in our economy. It’s already been said, but a franchise has a vested interest in protecting its name and reputation.
Holding franchises responsible for all actions of its franchisees would ultimately drastically increase the cost of entry for a franchisee (read: small business), if not kill the business model completely.
Anything that curtails union activity or protection is a huge plus for the US economy. Unions are remnants of the Mob. They are responsible for the election and destruction of Bozo Brown and his slug train to nowhere. You need look no further than to his administration to see how deleterious the unions have been in CA.
I find it totally unacceptable as well as most of the comments from the extremists posting.
Your fellow Americans who have a different opinion than you are extremists?
That’s a liberal philosophy, now isn’t it?
Not sure how this will effect PEO’s including ADP & Paychecks that have taken away many workers’ compensation policies from insurance agents including how they will effect 1099 workers.
unions aren’t always bad.
Employers aren’t always good.
But the playing field needs to be flat.
Unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. Now, all they are is a promotion for Progressive rule and to make America less competitive in the world.
I think it is funny how some unions are no longer useful but have brainwashed their members into thinking they are. Take the school teachers’ union. Teachers pay a big monthly dues that include their medical benefits. However, because of the unions, teachers have lost their individuality within the school system. They are no longer judged as an individual, they are judged as a group. So a real good teacher will get a 3% increase and the real crappy teacher will also get the 3% increase in pay. Not fair. They know it, but they don’t see it because the unions make them think that they would’ve gotten less without them. Truth is if they dumped the union, their dues would pay for their medical and they would pocket the rest.
Unions don’t prevent layoffs. If a company cannot afford to pay workers, then they cannot afford to pay workers. Unless the union is loaning or giving the company money to continue paying employees, then they can say they delay layoffs.
Merry Christmas to all who can’t afford to celebrate Christmas.
Unions prevent layoffs and make sure employees have a say in how the company operates. A lone employee is an ant to a company executive. Been looking for a job for months, applying to anything and everything, no luck, no Christmas for my kids.
It’s a shame someone disliked your comment. I can read the pain you are feeling. You would think you could get some “thoughts and prayers” from the conservatives in the crowd. They are really good with that talking point. I hope you land on your feet sooner than later. It must be so difficult not to be able to deliver Santa to your kids on Christmas. So sorry!
I say *public* unions have outlived their usefulness. They seem to think the public trough is unlimited.
There is still a place for private unions. It’s all about checks and balances. Hence my comment about level playing field.
I have personally seen two fairly good sized companies struck by unions with unreasonable demands and after several months of picketing, the companies went out of business entirely. What did the unions gain by not being reasonable? There is just so much money in the till and when it is no longer feasible, the company just shuts down. As I said, unions have outlived their usefulness.
I’m not pro-union by any means, but I am curious – what were the identities of the “fairly good sized companies” and when did their failures occur?
The failures occurred during the Obama Administration after the unions helped getting him elected.
What are the identities of the “fairly good sized companies”?
You know, the company names?
WINNING!