[Timezone Detection]
X
Really Fast Registration - Join in seconds!

User Name: Email Address: Over 13 and agree
to Forum Rules?  
Human Verification


Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

  1. #1

    Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Fast food restaurateurs, hotel operators and other franchise owners from around the country are descending upon Washington on Tuesday to register their opposition to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding they say threatens to undermine their business model.

    The latest salvo in an escalating battle between labor and business, the fly-in is part of the International Franchise Association’s (IFA) strategy to overturn a preliminary NLRB decision that corporations like McDonald’s share joint employer status with their franchisees.

    If upheld, the finding would force corporate managers to the table in collective bargaining discussions and expose them to claims of labor rights violations from workers at chain stores and businesses.
    The fight began only recently, but the business group is moving to quickly shore up crucial support within Congress.

    “We’re going to make our voices heard,” IFA President Steve Caldeira said, describing the developments at the NLRB as “a threatening situation” for an otherwise healthy industry that added jobs during the economic crisis.

    “It would have a chilling effect on job creation,” he said.

    The fight centers on a July finding by the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel that McDonald’s USA LLC could be named as a “joint employer respondent” in scores of cases alleging workers’ rights were violated in response to protests for higher pay.

    Franchisors have traditionally been insulated from such cases, but the NLRB finding supports a view held by unions that corporations like McDonald’s enjoy control over virtually every facet of its stores while bearing little responsibility for worker treatment.

    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,” said Micah Wissinger, an attorney representing McDonald’s workers in New York City.

    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...e-of-mcdonalds

  2. #2

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,”

    Absolutely correct.

    Cannot wait for the franchisors to be donkey punched on this issue.

  3. #3

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Nole
    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,”

    Absolutely correct.

    Cannot wait for the franchisors to be donkey punched on this issue.
    Corporate has standards, but they don't make hiring decisions. There's a big difference. Of course most lawyers can argue just about anything, whether or not the argument makes sense. Brooklyn is a perfect example of how that works. He just trends towards the harder arguments.

  4. #4

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Nole
    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,”

    Absolutely correct.

    Cannot wait for the franchisors to be donkey punched on this issue.
    Corporate has standards, but they don't make hiring decisions. There's a big difference. Of course most lawyers can argue just about anything, whether or not the argument makes sense. Brooklyn is a perfect example of how that works. He just trends towards the harder arguments.

    Sorry if you think that hiring decisions and pretty much no other autonomy justifies protecting corporate HQ.

    That argument is bogus in the extreme.

  5. #5

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    [quote=Brooklyn Nole]
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by "Brooklyn Nole":ouwldbel
    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,”

    Absolutely correct.

    Cannot wait for the franchisors to be donkey punched on this issue.
    Corporate has standards, but they don't make hiring decisions. There's a big difference. Of course most lawyers can argue just about anything, whether or not the argument makes sense. Brooklyn is a perfect example of how that works. He just trends towards the harder arguments.

    Sorry if you think that hiring decisions and pretty much no other autonomy justifies protecting corporate HQ.

    That argument is bogus in the extreme.[/quote:ouwldbel]

    Since you have such intimate knowledge of how these businesses run please expound on how the franchisor controls how employees are treated.

  6. #6

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    [quote=BigBlueNole]
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Nole
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by "Brooklyn Nole":29tm905u
    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,”

    Absolutely correct.

    Cannot wait for the franchisors to be donkey punched on this issue.
    Corporate has standards, but they don't make hiring decisions. There's a big difference. Of course most lawyers can argue just about anything, whether or not the argument makes sense. Brooklyn is a perfect example of how that works. He just trends towards the harder arguments.

    Sorry if you think that hiring decisions and pretty much no other autonomy justifies protecting corporate HQ.

    That argument is bogus in the extreme.
    Since you have such intimate knowledge of how these businesses run please expound on how the franchisor controls how employees are treated.[/quote:29tm905u]

    My high school girlfriend's Father owned a half dozen Burger Kings. So I am pretty familiar with the fact that the franchises get a degree of autonomy over their employees. I am act5ually aware that most of the management decisions are dictated by corporate. Not every fast food franchise is run like McDonalds or BK - but it is obvious to any objective person just how much control corporate HQ has which justifies actions against the franchisor.

  7. #7

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    [quote=Brooklyn Nole][quote=BigBlueNole]
    Quote Originally Posted by "Brooklyn Nole":1rtu7nll
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by "Brooklyn Nole":1rtu7nll
    “The reality is that McDonald’s requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there’s no doubt who’s really in charge,”

    Absolutely correct.

    Cannot wait for the franchisors to be donkey punched on this issue.
    Corporate has standards, but they don't make hiring decisions. There's a big difference. Of course most lawyers can argue just about anything, whether or not the argument makes sense. Brooklyn is a perfect example of how that works. He just trends towards the harder arguments.

    Sorry if you think that hiring decisions and pretty much no other autonomy justifies protecting corporate HQ.

    That argument is bogus in the extreme.
    Since you have such intimate knowledge of how these businesses run please expound on how the franchisor controls how employees are treated.[/quote:1rtu7nll]

    My high school girlfriend's Father owned a half dozen Burger Kings. So I am pretty familiar with the fact that the franchises get a degree of autonomy over their employees. I am act5ually aware that most of the management decisions are dictated by corporate. Not every fast food franchise is run like McDonalds or BK - but it is obvious to any objective person just how much control corporate HQ has which justifies actions against the franchisor.[/quote:1rtu7nll]

    So now anecdotal evidence is ok as an argument. I get it... You stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so you are good.

    Again, please give us concrete examples of franchisors telling franchisees how to treat employees.

    Franchisors give requirements for appearance, quality requirements, procedure requirements related to business processes and require specific product but they do not have input to how employees are treated.

  8. #8

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    So what?

    I don't believe that is the point and you do.

    The courts will decide.

  9. #9

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Brooklyn, this NLRB decision overturns decades of established law, and is a shameless union power grab, enabled by Obama's shills on the board. If Bush's minions had done something similar to weaken unions, your side would be screaming bloody murder.

  10. #10

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Boo F'n Hoo Trad.

    You don't get to revel in Citizens United overturning established law - so you have to lump it like a man when it happens and you don't like it.

    Payback is a ***** - and it usually includes interest.

  11. #11

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    The NLRB is not the Supreme Court. They're a bureaucratic tool of the executive branch.

  12. #12

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Yes they are - and they also have a great influence on the law and regulations.

    Let's see what the Courts say - but no whining from you if the Courts side with the NLRB.

  13. #13

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Degree of control over business standards is different than degree of control over business operations. Degree of control over standards and operations is different from degree of control over employees. Let's use the IRS test of employee vs. contractor. There's no way the IRS would say McDonald's corporate is an employer in any fashion.

    Brooklyn, instead of just dismissing an argument you don't agree with as stupid, provide us with a legal basis instead. If everything was always cut and dried, we really wouldn't need a court system, would we? Supreme Court decisions would always be 9-0, right?

  14. #14

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Degree of control over business standards is different than degree of control over business operations. Degree of control over standards and operations is different from degree of control over employees. Let's use the IRS test of employee vs. contractor. There's no way the IRS would say McDonald's corporate is an employer in any fashion.

    Brooklyn, instead of just dismissing an argument you don't agree with as stupid, provide us with a legal basis instead. If everything was always cut and dried, we really wouldn't need a court system, would we? Supreme Court decisions would always be 9-0, right?

    No, reasonable people can differ and often do. And what is the basis for arguing the IRS test should be the baseline standard? Or perhaps that standard needs to be tossed.

  15. #15

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    The entire issue is based on the notion that corporate has a degree of control of employees of the franchises. The NLRB wants to expand upon that. You've gotten so caught up in arguing you've forgotten what you were arguing about.

  16. #16

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    The entire issue is based on the notion that corporate has a degree of control of employees of the franchises. The NLRB wants to expand upon that. You've gotten so caught up in arguing you've forgotten what you were arguing about.

    False.

    The entire debate is what degree of control means and the legal triggers said control set off.

    I think the NLRB view is correct and not even a close call.

  17. #17

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Nole
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    The entire issue is based on the notion that corporate has a degree of control of employees of the franchises. The NLRB wants to expand upon that. You've gotten so caught up in arguing you've forgotten what you were arguing about.

    False.

    The entire debate is what degree of control means and the legal triggers said control set off.

    I think the NLRB view is correct and not even a close call.
    Of course you would think that; it suits your agenda.

  18. #18

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Nole
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    The entire issue is based on the notion that corporate has a degree of control of employees of the franchises. The NLRB wants to expand upon that. You've gotten so caught up in arguing you've forgotten what you were arguing about.

    False.

    The entire debate is what degree of control means and the legal triggers said control set off.

    I think the NLRB view is correct and not even a close call.
    Of course you would think that; it suits your agenda.

    Yes, it does suit my agenda - but I also agree with it in the legal AND political contexts.

  19. #19

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    [quote=Brooklyn Nole]
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by "Brooklyn Nole":3e245xrn
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    The entire issue is based on the notion that corporate has a degree of control of employees of the franchises. The NLRB wants to expand upon that. You've gotten so caught up in arguing you've forgotten what you were arguing about.

    False.

    The entire debate is what degree of control means and the legal triggers said control set off.

    I think the NLRB view is correct and not even a close call.
    Of course you would think that; it suits your agenda.

    Yes, it does suit my agenda - but I also agree with it in the legal AND political contexts.[/quote:3e245xrn]

    But you haven't provided any real legal support for your personal and political opinion.

  20. #20

    Re: Franchise owners flock to DC in defense of McDonald's

    [quote=finance85]
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Nole
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    Quote Originally Posted by "Brooklyn Nole":kbpkqewj
    Quote Originally Posted by finance85
    The entire issue is based on the notion that corporate has a degree of control of employees of the franchises. The NLRB wants to expand upon that. You've gotten so caught up in arguing you've forgotten what you were arguing about.

    False.

    The entire debate is what degree of control means and the legal triggers said control set off.

    I think the NLRB view is correct and not even a close call.
    Of course you would think that; it suits your agenda.

    Yes, it does suit my agenda - but I also agree with it in the legal AND political contexts.
    But you haven't provided any real legal support for your personal and political opinion.[/quote:kbpkqewj]

    I said I agree with the reasoning of the NLRB. Don't know what else you are looking for in terms of a legal justification. Of course politically - I'd love to see these low paying bastards get their hats handed to them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2013 www.BigDelivery.com - All Rights Reserved - Copyright © 2014 www.TheDailyNole.com - All Rights Reserved
This website is an independently operated source of news and information not affiliated with any school or team.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO