4 ms·

why does the accounting designation of a "franchise" imply the employee shouldn't be counted ? They wear a uniform that says McDonalds, they show up 40+ hrs/wee

why does the accounting designation of a "franchise" imply the employee shouldn't be counted ? They wear a uniform that says McDonalds, they show up 40+ hrs/week at a building that has "McDonalds" written on it. The product they sell has McDonalds written everywhere on it. Advertisements say "go to McDonalds", not "Go to your nearest McDonalds Franchise". What makes them not an employee of McDonalds ?

bradleyjg 10y ago
The uniform may say McDonalds but the paycheck doesn't.
Someone 10y ago
If the franchise owner doesn't pay its employees, they cannot go to McDonalds headquarters to get their money. If somebody sues a McDonalds shop and gets awarded a large sum of money, they cannot go and get it from McDonalds headquarters. If McDonalds were to go bankrupt, emplyees would still have a job (possibly not for very long, as your employer may decide to close shop, but he might also consider continuing under his own name or to start working for another franchise organization) (Having said that, McDonalds exerts quite some control over what their franchisers can and cannot do. It would not surprise me if judges, in some/many, would rule McDonalds to be responsible for what happens at its franchises, for example in cases involving hygiene)
- digler999 10y ago
  so basically its done to gut workers' rights. The person behind the counter isn't an "employee" but a "third-party contractor". How clever. But yet if you protest "inequality" a whole segment of the population will write you off as being a leftist hippie as if nothing's wrong. If there is ever a violent revolution in our lifetime, I think future generations will read about this stuff in history books as foretelling omens. And I'm talking about the bigger picture here, not just MCD: * You're not an employee, you're a contractor. * You have "rights", just not the same rights as the shareholders you work for. * Don't hate us, you were harmed by a third party, take it up with them. * Vote for tweedle-dee next time instead of tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee is "for the people" (meanwhile corporation paid equal amounts to both candidates). I see the bigger picture as eroding the personhood and agency of the poor, through the most elaborate and creative accounting and legislation imaginable.
  - cstejerean 10y ago
    No, it'a not done to gut workers rights. The workers are still employees, of the franchise owner. It is done because expanding through franchises is a lot quicker and less risky than expanding company owners stores, because someone else puts up the capital and assumes the risk of failure.
    - bigiain 10y ago
      There's also the point of view that the franchisees are in the burger flipping business (and employ burger flippers), while Mc Donalds the parent corp are actually in the real estate business. (It's not _entirely_ true, but it's a quite plausible explanation of how their business works...)
  - bmm6o 10y ago
    This is wildly inaccurate. It seems like you've taken the arguments against e.g. Uber assumed that they apply to McDonald's. The employees not being McDonald's employees is a consequence of the franchise model, not some nefarious plot to strip them of rights. They are so clearly "employees" and not "contractors" that not even the most disruptive SV company would attempt to push that past the IRS.
    - digler999 10y ago
      > a consequence of the franchise model what a coincidence that a "consequence of the franchise model" is the inability to unionize, since each franchise is owned independently. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the structuring of the franchise, does it ?
      - dilemma 10y ago
        They can still unionize because they are still employees. Franchising is a perfectly normal business structure in industries like fast food and supermarkets, just like cooperatives exists certain other industries.
      - 10y ago
bwilliams18 10y ago
This is actually being actively questioned in court. MCD provides significant technology to it's franchisors with regards to scheduling employees. Unions are asserting that this scheduling means they are a primary employer, and thus a Union would be able to collectively bargain with the entirety of MCD.
maxerickson 10y ago
It's frequently the case that they will not get 40 hours a week.
bandrami 10y ago
The fact that McDonalds doesn't pay them anything, but a franchisee who is a McDonalds customer does. Actually that's kind of definitive for me...

bradleyjg 10y ago

The uniform may say McDonalds but the paycheck doesn't.

Someone 10y ago

If the franchise owner doesn't pay its employees, they cannot go to McDonalds headquarters to get their money. If somebody sues a McDonalds shop and gets awarded a large sum of money, they cannot go and get it from McDonalds headquarters. If McDonalds were to go bankrupt, emplyees would still have a job (possibly not for very long, as your employer may decide to close shop, but he might also consider continuing under his own name or to start working for another franchise organization) (Having said that, McDonalds exerts quite some control over what their franchisers can and cannot do. It would not surprise me if judges, in some/many, would rule McDonalds to be responsible for what happens at its franchises, for example in cases involving hygiene)

digler999 10y ago
so basically its done to gut workers' rights. The person behind the counter isn't an "employee" but a "third-party contractor". How clever. But yet if you protest "inequality" a whole segment of the population will write you off as being a leftist hippie as if nothing's wrong. If there is ever a violent revolution in our lifetime, I think future generations will read about this stuff in history books as foretelling omens. And I'm talking about the bigger picture here, not just MCD: * You're not an employee, you're a contractor. * You have "rights", just not the same rights as the shareholders you work for. * Don't hate us, you were harmed by a third party, take it up with them. * Vote for tweedle-dee next time instead of tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee is "for the people" (meanwhile corporation paid equal amounts to both candidates). I see the bigger picture as eroding the personhood and agency of the poor, through the most elaborate and creative accounting and legislation imaginable.
- cstejerean 10y ago
  No, it'a not done to gut workers rights. The workers are still employees, of the franchise owner. It is done because expanding through franchises is a lot quicker and less risky than expanding company owners stores, because someone else puts up the capital and assumes the risk of failure.
  - bigiain 10y ago
    There's also the point of view that the franchisees are in the burger flipping business (and employ burger flippers), while Mc Donalds the parent corp are actually in the real estate business. (It's not _entirely_ true, but it's a quite plausible explanation of how their business works...)
- bmm6o 10y ago
  This is wildly inaccurate. It seems like you've taken the arguments against e.g. Uber assumed that they apply to McDonald's. The employees not being McDonald's employees is a consequence of the franchise model, not some nefarious plot to strip them of rights. They are so clearly "employees" and not "contractors" that not even the most disruptive SV company would attempt to push that past the IRS.
  - digler999 10y ago
    > a consequence of the franchise model what a coincidence that a "consequence of the franchise model" is the inability to unionize, since each franchise is owned independently. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the structuring of the franchise, does it ?
    - dilemma 10y ago
      They can still unionize because they are still employees. Franchising is a perfectly normal business structure in industries like fast food and supermarkets, just like cooperatives exists certain other industries.
    - 10y ago

bwilliams18 10y ago

This is actually being actively questioned in court. MCD provides significant technology to it's franchisors with regards to scheduling employees. Unions are asserting that this scheduling means they are a primary employer, and thus a Union would be able to collectively bargain with the entirety of MCD.

maxerickson 10y ago

It's frequently the case that they will not get 40 hours a week.

bandrami 10y ago

The fact that McDonalds doesn't pay them anything, but a franchisee who is a McDonalds customer does. Actually that's kind of definitive for me...