3 ms·

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 prote

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.
  - bmm6o 10y ago
    It's true that the franchise model is in practice an impediment to unionization. But this argument represents a huge shifting of the goalposts from your original incorrect claim that they are contractors and not employees.

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.
- bmm6o 10y ago
  It's true that the franchise model is in practice an impediment to unionization. But this argument represents a huge shifting of the goalposts from your original incorrect claim that they are contractors and not employees.