|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 30 2014 15:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 15:05 coverpunch wrote:On July 30 2014 14:23 cheese sandwich wrote:
Can somebody explain to me why the US supports Saudi Arabia in the Middle East other than oil. From what I've seen the Saudi's are pretty sketchy. Oil is a pretty good reason to support a regime. The rest of the region has taught us over the decades that we could do far worse than a despotic but stable monarchy. Please elaborate. Are you saying that the US doesn't actually care about bringing freedom to people across the world? That it only wants despots who pay it lip service and give its businessmen unfettered capital access, while extracting resources?
I...didn't say that at all. Do you really want me to elaborate or do you want to keep telling me what I meant?
|
Yes I want you to elaborate. Are you dodging the question?
|
The NLRB needs to explain their logic on this one. Franchisees are generally accepted as separate businesses from the franchisor:
McDonald's Responsible For Treatment Of Workers, Agency Says
McDonald's shares responsibility for how workers are treated at its franchised restaurants, the general counsel's office for the National Labor Relations Board announced Tuesday.
Since November 2012, NLRB has had 181 cases filed involving McDonald's. Many have been dismissed, but the agency said that McDonald's USA LLC will be considered a joint employer in cases that are found to have merit.
Restaurant chains have fought such a designation. McDonald's intends to contest the ruling, which the company warned could have a broad impact beyond the restaurant business.
Its 3,000 franchisees set the terms of employment, such as wages and hours, Heather Smedstad, McDonald's senior vice president for human resources, said in a statement. ...
Link
In other news the expected Q2 GDP bounce back did happen:
US growth surges by 4 percent after frosty first quarter
Gross domestic product expanded at a 4.0 percent annual rate as activity picked up broadly after shrinking at a revised 2.1 percent pace in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.
Link
|
If that were the case, that franchisees set their own wages, employment schedules, and the like, then why do wages differ so little across all McDonalds?
|
On July 30 2014 23:31 farvacola wrote:
If that were the case, that franchisees set their own wages, employment schedules, and the like, then why do wages differ so little across all McDonalds?
I imagine McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's all pay similar wages. They're all doing a similar thing, in similar markets.
|
Ahh yes, then that would be yet another reason for the government to get involved. Clearly, market forces are not enough to motivate the food industry when it comes to keeping up with inflation. That the working definition for "franchise" and "franchisee" needs reworking is only a small piece of the puzzle.
|
We shall see how Seattle works out or whether the government should prop up these dead end jobs to make them career worthy livable wages.
|
On July 31 2014 00:10 farvacola wrote:
Ahh yes, then that would be yet another reason for the government to get involved. Clearly, market forces are not enough to motivate the food industry when it comes to keeping up with inflation. That the working definition for "franchise" and "franchisee" needs reworking is only a small piece of the puzzle.
What the heck are you talking about?
|
Labor advocates say that it's clear who's really the boss, arguing that the company holds enormous sway over the business operations of its franchise owners.
"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, a New York attorney who represents McDonald's workers.
From the NPR article on your linked story, jonny.
Also, McDonalds itself admits that it has some control over wages in its franchises:
"We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property.
Source
It's not clear to me why you think McDonalds shouldn't bear some responsibility for the treatment of its workers, good or bad, other than some anachronistic conception of franchising that might never have had merit to begin with.
|
Wolfstan got it. I'm sure you can too, Jonny.
|
On July 31 2014 00:48 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +Labor advocates say that it's clear who's really the boss, arguing that the company holds enormous sway over the business operations of its franchise owners.
"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, a New York attorney who represents McDonald's workers. From the NPR article on your linked story, jonny. Also, McDonalds itself admits that it has some control over wages in its franchises: Show nested quote +"We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property. SourceIt's not clear to me why you think McDonalds shouldn't bear some responsibility for the treatment of its workers, good or bad, other than some anachronistic conception of franchising that might never have had merit to begin with.
Of course McDonalds should bear responsibility for its own workers. We're talking about people that don't work for McDonalds.
On July 31 2014 00:49 farvacola wrote:
Wolfstan got it. I'm sure you can too, Jonny.
The story isn't about the minimum wage or living wages.
|
|
|
On July 31 2014 01:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 00:48 IgnE wrote:Labor advocates say that it's clear who's really the boss, arguing that the company holds enormous sway over the business operations of its franchise owners.
"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, a New York attorney who represents McDonald's workers. From the NPR article on your linked story, jonny. Also, McDonalds itself admits that it has some control over wages in its franchises: "We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property. SourceIt's not clear to me why you think McDonalds shouldn't bear some responsibility for the treatment of its workers, good or bad, other than some anachronistic conception of franchising that might never have had merit to begin with. Of course McDonalds should bear responsibility for its own workers. We're talking about people that don't work for McDonalds.
Are you telling me that that story is about people who work at the franchising company and not at the franchised restaurant locations?
|
On July 31 2014 01:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 01:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2014 00:48 IgnE wrote:Labor advocates say that it's clear who's really the boss, arguing that the company holds enormous sway over the business operations of its franchise owners.
"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, a New York attorney who represents McDonald's workers. From the NPR article on your linked story, jonny. Also, McDonalds itself admits that it has some control over wages in its franchises: "We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property. SourceIt's not clear to me why you think McDonalds shouldn't bear some responsibility for the treatment of its workers, good or bad, other than some anachronistic conception of franchising that might never have had merit to begin with. Of course McDonalds should bear responsibility for its own workers. We're talking about people that don't work for McDonalds. Are you telling me that that story is about people who work at the franchising company and not at the franchised restaurant locations?
No, it's about the franchising company being held responsible for people who work at the franchisee.
Edit: For clarity, some restaurants are owned by McDonalds corporate and others are independently owned franchisees.
|
Making the franchiser liable for the franchisee's labor practices (and misdeeds) is stupid. It's just an invitation to drive up legal costs as these entities incorporate indemnification clauses into their contracts and prosecute them. These are two distinctly separate entities as a matter of law, and should be treated as such.
|
On July 31 2014 01:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 01:14 IgnE wrote:On July 31 2014 01:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2014 00:48 IgnE wrote:Labor advocates say that it's clear who's really the boss, arguing that the company holds enormous sway over the business operations of its franchise owners.
"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, a New York attorney who represents McDonald's workers. From the NPR article on your linked story, jonny. Also, McDonalds itself admits that it has some control over wages in its franchises: "We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property. SourceIt's not clear to me why you think McDonalds shouldn't bear some responsibility for the treatment of its workers, good or bad, other than some anachronistic conception of franchising that might never have had merit to begin with. Of course McDonalds should bear responsibility for its own workers. We're talking about people that don't work for McDonalds. Are you telling me that that story is about people who work at the franchising company and not at the franchised restaurant locations? No, it's about the franchising company being held responsible for people who work at the franchisee.
Did you read my post? The one where McDonalds acknowledged that it had some responsibility over the wages its franchises pay their employees? Because you responded as if you thought that that post wasn't talking about what it was talking about. You are going in circles.
|
On July 31 2014 01:23 xDaunt wrote:
Making the franchiser liable for the franchisee's labor practices (and misdeeds) is stupid. It's just an invitation to drive up legal costs as these entities incorporate indemnification clauses into their contracts and prosecute them. These are two distinctly separate entities as a matter of law, and should be treated as such.
Perhaps legal costs wouldn't be so high if there were fewer reasons for complaint. When the law treats two entities as separate that are not, practically speaking, separate, then the law needs to change. If it exerts pressure on McDonalds to enforce higher labor practice standards at its franchises that is a good thing. I know you are worried about the poor negotiating ability of McDonalds against its mighty franchisers, but I think somehow they will be ok.
|
On July 31 2014 01:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 01:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2014 01:14 IgnE wrote:On July 31 2014 01:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 31 2014 00:48 IgnE wrote:Labor advocates say that it's clear who's really the boss, arguing that the company holds enormous sway over the business operations of its franchise owners.
"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, a New York attorney who represents McDonald's workers. From the NPR article on your linked story, jonny. Also, McDonalds itself admits that it has some control over wages in its franchises: "We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property. SourceIt's not clear to me why you think McDonalds shouldn't bear some responsibility for the treatment of its workers, good or bad, other than some anachronistic conception of franchising that might never have had merit to begin with. Of course McDonalds should bear responsibility for its own workers. We're talking about people that don't work for McDonalds. Are you telling me that that story is about people who work at the franchising company and not at the franchised restaurant locations? No, it's about the franchising company being held responsible for people who work at the franchisee. Did you read my post? The one where McDonalds acknowledged that it had some responsibility over the wages its franchises pay their employees? Because you responded as if you thought that that post wasn't talking about what it was talking about. You are going in circles.
Where did they acknowledge that? Here?
"We believe we pay fair and competitive wages," Donald Thompson said at the company's annual meeting on Thursday.
The annual meeting was held a day after more than 1,000 protesters, including many wearing McDonald's uniforms, "stormed through the company's campus entrance" in Oak Brook, . The Associated Press says 138 of them were arrested for refusing to leave the company's property.
I don't see any mention of franchisees here...
|
I linked the article jonny. It's from NPR. Are you telling me that you think Mcdonalds office employees were outside protesting in Mcdonalds restaurant uniforms?
|
It begins:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), an influential tea party leader, will meet with a group of House Republicans Wednesday to urge them to oppose House Speaker John A. Boehner’s plan to stem the flow of migrant children at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to several House members who plan to attend the 7 p.m. gathering at Cruz’s office.
Cruz’s huddle is the latest example of the combative freshman senator wading into House affairs and serving as an informal whip against the leadership’s immigration position. It is also a direct shot at Boehner’s effort to pass his legislative package, hours before the bill is scheduled to come to the House floor on Thursday.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
