3 ms·
That’s not how I read it. What I read is that the entire story is wrong, no one’s pay is cut, and the reason these signs were posted is unclear. What am I missi
by NoblePublius 8y ago
That’s not how I read it. What I read is that the entire story is wrong, no one’s pay is cut, and the reason these signs were posted is unclear. What am I missing?
- toomuchtodo 8y agoWhat I read was that the franchisee who made the labor decision has lost their franchises, the ownership of which has been transferred to a preferred corporate partner. “Thank you for your inquiry about the about the eight Sonic Drive-Ins in the Columbus, Ohio market that have changed ownership from a franchisee to Sonic’s operating affiliate, SRI Holding Company (SRI) as of Monday, February 25.” It’s effectively a contractual death penalty for a franchisee (not an uncommon component of franchise agreements as it relates to bad PR or egregious business practices).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- orblivion 8y agoThis story is (maybe after update?) dated March 1. The official statement is dated February 25. The tweet with the picture is dated Feb 23rd. Not sure which interpretation to take.
- wanderr 8y agoI read it the same way as you, but on closer examination, if you look at the dates the letter was posted and the date of when the policy/acquisition is effective, it seems that Sonic corp did step in after the fact to acquire these and reinstate old policies. But it is amazing how unclear that was.