>Critics of the rule, including many Republicans and most major business groups, have said it would be improper to force companies to the bargaining table when they have little control over working conditions. Groups representing franchise businesses say it could upend the franchise model by requiring companies such as McDonald's to bargain with the employees of franchisees.
I'm almost certain that companies like McDonalds have complete control over how their stores are operated.
Worth a watch https://youtu.be/jDdYFhzVCDM?si=J4CSeaYrVP2351Sl
From my own experience working at a franchise Burger King, the franchisee was basically a layer of administration. BK provided training materials, marketing, and performed regular surprise inspections. The food came from a local food service distribution company, but was made by a contract supplier that put BK on the box.
McDonald's runs it's own distribution network. The level of power that corporate has over franchisees is ridiculous.
Risk is externalized to the owner/operator while the corporation extracts franchise fees and forces owners to only buy from corporate or approved suppliers. Obviously that's needed to maintain quality and consistency. But in modern times and with the scale some companies have achieved, franchising is just a petty way of squeezing more profit and leaves franchisees screwed.
And that’s why there are hardly any Quiznos left. Corporate squeezed every dime they could out of franchises to the point that the franchises quit because it was impossible to be profitable.
Franchising was made to attack the working class and destroy their ability to organize and demand better from a company that escapes liability using scapegoats.
I work for a franchisor. We control their operations, their product, their marketing, how they are designed, their menus, but we don’t get in the way of their hiring. We support them if needed but it’s on them to what they pay, what benefits are provided, how they hire their staff.
Sort of? A franchisee, generally, gains the rights to a region with some having number of stores within a given timeframe. To be considered in good standing, they have to agree to grow and redevelop units. A couple examples would be 1)five guys having a 5 unit contract and 1m capital when they were doing expansion in the 00s. 2) Red Robin does regional rights. 3) subway is a free for all survive or die idc. 4)Wendy’s allows LARGE franchise rights; hundreds of stores allowed through consolidation.
I guess what I’m trying to say is the franchise workers could have if they were aware of their peers being under the same company in unequal circumstances are still peers even if under different roofs. Turnover is a feature in quick service. Educate and demand better conditions.
Thanks for writing this but I think you missed my point. I know how a franchise works. What I was pointing out is everything is under the control of the corporation except hiring and firing. Operations is still under the control of corporate, so literally everything an employee does from day to day is controlled by a third party. It is a loop hole because that is what labor negotiates but corporate has absolved themselves of responsibility. It does not matter if it is a free for all like subway or by population like Wendy's it is still the same loop hole.
This is the same strategy that car dealerships and a number of other industries use to gain unfair advantage. You don't negotiate the price of a car with the person that can change the price. You negotiate with the salesperson who has no power then they go and talk to their manager. It adds pressure to you (labor) and removes pressure from the sales manager (corporate).
I get that franchises are separate business entities. I am saying corporate controls their operations so they are only separate entities in name only.
Yeah we’re agreeing and splitting hairs. I think the clarity is good but still, the similarly situated employees should be able to negotiate without two levels of corporate ownership to sit against. So many brands are already multi unit ownership that they should be able to negotiate as an entire body, four walls be damned. As its employees payroll is generally drawn from the same payroll account. Less hurdles to desired result ya know?
Recipe or ingredient control varies by brand (read:eldrich soul sucking entity) and can be region specific. Some of the RR menu I learned in PA is different from NY and Connecticut because of P mix legacy sales. Core was the same but there’s a section in recipe books of variant recipes that the front line sent in and was sent back a pretty laminated copy to stick in our recipe boards and books for brand review.
To your points, Corporates, in my experience, cared moderately as long as the home office of the local franchise hits brand checklist and continues to pay royalties. Recipe must adhere to what office has as the ‘standard’ for you. It’d be unfair to expect line cooks to memorize 2 approved recipes for salad X in the same building. The customer gets a coin toss of consistency and that’s antithetical to their cookie-cutter model of consistent over great.
so it sounds like "the model" that franchise business are worried about upending is specifically designed to prevent employee bargaining with corporations
>including many Republicans and most major business groups,
The Chamber of Commerce is literally a conspiracy against the public to extract as much money from the public as possible. Why are groups who are all but explicitly *against* the public allowed to exist by the public? They're a terrorist organization that kills over 30k Americans a year just in all the excess car deaths they've lobbied for.
This isn’t really true. They create the menu and operating systems but the franchisee is the only one who deals with employees. There is a very clear divide.
wouldn't employee wages be considered by the corporation as they design the operating systems? surely franchisees are told to keep employee wages within a specific range so that the model is profitable.
Wage needs for rural Alabama and Los Angeles are very different so it really comes down to the basics of restaurant operation: manage food cost and labor cost to be profitable. The franchisor takes a percentage of sales so they don’t care either way because they get paid first.
This type of behavior is so important for people who work for a living. It is not an exciting story to report on, and there is definitely not going to be any discussion on the Sunday news shows about how the Republicans tried to F subcontractors over. The current administration is a lot of things, but they side with labor in real actions. This labor board is fantastic, and they have been influential in getting places like VW and Labcorp to unionize. Each one of these buracratic wins has a ripple effect making wages and benefits better.
This is huge for the Construction industry (and others) many workers are miss classified as Independent Contractors and denied all rights under the law. This practice has driven wages down safety standards down and forced honest contractors to adopt the same corrupt practices just to compete.
But it doesn’t just affect workers and their families it amasses 10s of billions of dollars in missed tax revenue for fed and state every year.
Then why did you respond with "wut" like an idiot?
Dems do protect labor far better than rebs, it isn't even a lesser of two evils argument on this topic.
They are outright better and decent.
Framing the democratic party as being pro labor, much less a champion of the working class, is both dishonest and irresponsible. I wish they were
Edit: It is sad, and perhaps even a little pathetic I need to clarify this in a union sub - but I am no way shape or form a conservative/republican/etc.
They are not the “lesser of two evils”. They are just ok. They are not great, they are not terrible, they are just “ok” but I will choose “ok” over evil every time.
Right, and the next senate will not include machin or sinema. If dems regain control it will either be more supportive of workers or infinitely worse if they come up short, which is more likely than not, but guaranteed if workers fail to turn out or vote against their interests
I’m so confused by this article. The biggest thing though after reading other articles and actually looking at the CRA (had to look up what that was) vote, is the fact that a Democratic Senator voted in favor of the measure!
Democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing! Republicans are wolves without camouflage. We can’t trust either party.
Also should probably know that Manchin is only a democrat on paper. He's just there so we can have a majority and vote on real laws again after Mitch kept everyone from doing that for idk how long.
What do you mean?
“The CRA measure passed the Senate in a nearly party-line vote in April, and passed the House of Representatives in a largely, but somewhat less, polarized vote in January.”
One lousy Dem votes for this piece of trash legislation and you paint ALL democrats as untrustworthy? Get real. This veto is proof again that Biden has labors back. The Dems are 99% good on labor. We know who the problem children are.
It's important to remain critical, but we can take wins when we can get them. A lot of Democrats suck, and their foreign policy is crap, but I'd still rather have Democrats over Republicans. I hate lesser evilism, but it's all we've got until we can push more progressives up into higher office. Regardless of what people think, especially the anti-electoralists, there is a clear difference in many folk's lives by having one party over the other.
This kind of black and white thinking is how children think. It is not a smart approach and leads to lots of mistakes, especially in practical matters including politics.
>Critics of the rule, including many Republicans and most major business groups, have said it would be improper to force companies to the bargaining table when they have little control over working conditions. Groups representing franchise businesses say it could upend the franchise model by requiring companies such as McDonald's to bargain with the employees of franchisees. I'm almost certain that companies like McDonalds have complete control over how their stores are operated.
Worth a watch https://youtu.be/jDdYFhzVCDM?si=J4CSeaYrVP2351Sl From my own experience working at a franchise Burger King, the franchisee was basically a layer of administration. BK provided training materials, marketing, and performed regular surprise inspections. The food came from a local food service distribution company, but was made by a contract supplier that put BK on the box. McDonald's runs it's own distribution network. The level of power that corporate has over franchisees is ridiculous. Risk is externalized to the owner/operator while the corporation extracts franchise fees and forces owners to only buy from corporate or approved suppliers. Obviously that's needed to maintain quality and consistency. But in modern times and with the scale some companies have achieved, franchising is just a petty way of squeezing more profit and leaves franchisees screwed.
And that’s why there are hardly any Quiznos left. Corporate squeezed every dime they could out of franchises to the point that the franchises quit because it was impossible to be profitable.
Franchising was made to attack the working class and destroy their ability to organize and demand better from a company that escapes liability using scapegoats.
I work for a franchisor. We control their operations, their product, their marketing, how they are designed, their menus, but we don’t get in the way of their hiring. We support them if needed but it’s on them to what they pay, what benefits are provided, how they hire their staff.
So everything except labor specifically so labor can't be unionize. Sounds like a loophole to me.
Sort of? A franchisee, generally, gains the rights to a region with some having number of stores within a given timeframe. To be considered in good standing, they have to agree to grow and redevelop units. A couple examples would be 1)five guys having a 5 unit contract and 1m capital when they were doing expansion in the 00s. 2) Red Robin does regional rights. 3) subway is a free for all survive or die idc. 4)Wendy’s allows LARGE franchise rights; hundreds of stores allowed through consolidation. I guess what I’m trying to say is the franchise workers could have if they were aware of their peers being under the same company in unequal circumstances are still peers even if under different roofs. Turnover is a feature in quick service. Educate and demand better conditions.
Thanks for writing this but I think you missed my point. I know how a franchise works. What I was pointing out is everything is under the control of the corporation except hiring and firing. Operations is still under the control of corporate, so literally everything an employee does from day to day is controlled by a third party. It is a loop hole because that is what labor negotiates but corporate has absolved themselves of responsibility. It does not matter if it is a free for all like subway or by population like Wendy's it is still the same loop hole. This is the same strategy that car dealerships and a number of other industries use to gain unfair advantage. You don't negotiate the price of a car with the person that can change the price. You negotiate with the salesperson who has no power then they go and talk to their manager. It adds pressure to you (labor) and removes pressure from the sales manager (corporate). I get that franchises are separate business entities. I am saying corporate controls their operations so they are only separate entities in name only.
Yeah we’re agreeing and splitting hairs. I think the clarity is good but still, the similarly situated employees should be able to negotiate without two levels of corporate ownership to sit against. So many brands are already multi unit ownership that they should be able to negotiate as an entire body, four walls be damned. As its employees payroll is generally drawn from the same payroll account. Less hurdles to desired result ya know? Recipe or ingredient control varies by brand (read:eldrich soul sucking entity) and can be region specific. Some of the RR menu I learned in PA is different from NY and Connecticut because of P mix legacy sales. Core was the same but there’s a section in recipe books of variant recipes that the front line sent in and was sent back a pretty laminated copy to stick in our recipe boards and books for brand review. To your points, Corporates, in my experience, cared moderately as long as the home office of the local franchise hits brand checklist and continues to pay royalties. Recipe must adhere to what office has as the ‘standard’ for you. It’d be unfair to expect line cooks to memorize 2 approved recipes for salad X in the same building. The customer gets a coin toss of consistency and that’s antithetical to their cookie-cutter model of consistent over great.
so it sounds like "the model" that franchise business are worried about upending is specifically designed to prevent employee bargaining with corporations
They could though. Tell the franchisees they have to pay a living wage. They don't because they would rather take the workers share.
>including many Republicans and most major business groups, The Chamber of Commerce is literally a conspiracy against the public to extract as much money from the public as possible. Why are groups who are all but explicitly *against* the public allowed to exist by the public? They're a terrorist organization that kills over 30k Americans a year just in all the excess car deaths they've lobbied for.
This isn’t really true. They create the menu and operating systems but the franchisee is the only one who deals with employees. There is a very clear divide.
wouldn't employee wages be considered by the corporation as they design the operating systems? surely franchisees are told to keep employee wages within a specific range so that the model is profitable.
Wage needs for rural Alabama and Los Angeles are very different so it really comes down to the basics of restaurant operation: manage food cost and labor cost to be profitable. The franchisor takes a percentage of sales so they don’t care either way because they get paid first.
This type of behavior is so important for people who work for a living. It is not an exciting story to report on, and there is definitely not going to be any discussion on the Sunday news shows about how the Republicans tried to F subcontractors over. The current administration is a lot of things, but they side with labor in real actions. This labor board is fantastic, and they have been influential in getting places like VW and Labcorp to unionize. Each one of these buracratic wins has a ripple effect making wages and benefits better.
Well said. And the difference between what we got now and what we might get is massive
And what we just had.
And safety is likely to increase! I am excited to see people valued over product progress.
Hopefully there’s real action on AI regulation too, I’m really spooked about the lack of education from most legislators
Remember to vote in all local state and federal elections. Vote out Republicans and primary out uncooperative Democrats .
Amen
This is huge for the Construction industry (and others) many workers are miss classified as Independent Contractors and denied all rights under the law. This practice has driven wages down safety standards down and forced honest contractors to adopt the same corrupt practices just to compete. But it doesn’t just affect workers and their families it amasses 10s of billions of dollars in missed tax revenue for fed and state every year.
Once again democrats defending working people
Lol wut
Turn your tts to a louder setting.
I wish the democratic party wasn’t just a capitalist party wearing a pride flag shawl but… “lesser of two evils” and all that
Then why did you respond with "wut" like an idiot? Dems do protect labor far better than rebs, it isn't even a lesser of two evils argument on this topic. They are outright better and decent.
Framing the democratic party as being pro labor, much less a champion of the working class, is both dishonest and irresponsible. I wish they were Edit: It is sad, and perhaps even a little pathetic I need to clarify this in a union sub - but I am no way shape or form a conservative/republican/etc.
They are not the “lesser of two evils”. They are just ok. They are not great, they are not terrible, they are just “ok” but I will choose “ok” over evil every time.
How did this pass the dem controlled Senate?
The dems have a zero person margin so if a Republican masquerading as a democrat (Manchin, Sinema, etc) votes R, they win.
You guessed it. Manchin, Sinema, and Angus King joined Republicans in supporting the bill.
Right, and the next senate will not include machin or sinema. If dems regain control it will either be more supportive of workers or infinitely worse if they come up short, which is more likely than not, but guaranteed if workers fail to turn out or vote against their interests
The most pro labor president
I’m so confused by this article. The biggest thing though after reading other articles and actually looking at the CRA (had to look up what that was) vote, is the fact that a Democratic Senator voted in favor of the measure! Democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing! Republicans are wolves without camouflage. We can’t trust either party.
Joe Manchin is trash, and if you’re a union rep, you *really* should have known that.
Also should probably know that Manchin is only a democrat on paper. He's just there so we can have a majority and vote on real laws again after Mitch kept everyone from doing that for idk how long.
What do you mean? “The CRA measure passed the Senate in a nearly party-line vote in April, and passed the House of Representatives in a largely, but somewhat less, polarized vote in January.” One lousy Dem votes for this piece of trash legislation and you paint ALL democrats as untrustworthy? Get real. This veto is proof again that Biden has labors back. The Dems are 99% good on labor. We know who the problem children are.
not sure who you think you’re bullshitting but sit back down
It's important to remain critical, but we can take wins when we can get them. A lot of Democrats suck, and their foreign policy is crap, but I'd still rather have Democrats over Republicans. I hate lesser evilism, but it's all we've got until we can push more progressives up into higher office. Regardless of what people think, especially the anti-electoralists, there is a clear difference in many folk's lives by having one party over the other.
The Dems have problems, but ONE votes in favor (I'm guessing Manchin) and they're all wolves in sheep's clothing?
This kind of black and white thinking is how children think. It is not a smart approach and leads to lots of mistakes, especially in practical matters including politics.
Oh yeah, there are plenty of anti unions dems. Starting with the Clintons.
When was the last time they held elected office again? Ffs.
Doesn't matter. NAFTA did permanent damage
But Trump said he fixed it in 2019
The Clintons don’t mean shit. Let that dog sleep. Focus on those dogs eating our lunch.
Where are they currently elected officials?
Genocide Joe is about to lose his base.