4 ms·

Don Fertman, Subway’s chief development officer and a veteran of the company for 38 years, said... that owning restaurants helps give development agents “a bett

Don Fertman, Subway’s chief development officer and a veteran of the company for 38 years, said... that owning restaurants helps give development agents “a better understanding of all aspects of owning a small business.” He said the company reviews the agents’ work and expects them to uphold ethical standards, dealing with violations “on a case-by-case basis.” .... “Our business development agents are well-respected members of our business community,” [Fertman] said. “And when we hear these allegations, I would say that they are false.” He said he was not aware of any exceptions. This is literally the same C-level clown claiming (a) that all violations are investigated carefully and (b) that no violations exist. No ethical person could have heard about this ridiculous "development agent" scheme and remained silent about how obviously abusive it is, therefore no manager at Subway corporate is an ethical person. I'm also pretty disappointed in USA courts: did no judge ever look at these bankrupted immigrants and see someone deserving of justice? I haven't been in one of these dumps in at least a year, and after reading TFA I don't plan to go back. I'm just glad it's privately held, so the upcoming fire-sale to private equity will hurt the family and not honest investors. Not as much as they've hurt the poor entrepreneurs who trusted them, but that would be too much to expect in USA...

MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
How is it possible that Mr Patel is not in jail? This is just blatant fraud and corruption.
- ninth_ant 7y ago
  Surely you understand the difference in burden of proof is different between a compelling news article and a court of law. It’s entirely plausible that he acted ethically and legally at all times and the authors or sources were heavily biased towards a certain editorial conclusion. Please apply some skepticism before reading one article and condemning people to jail.
  - MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
    He acquired restaurants personally of owners that were on his target list. This alone is a clear conflict of interest and if not legally, at least ethically very questionable. There is a source saying she was his "hit man". I'm sorry but this does not leave a lot of room for interpretation.
    - prostoalex 7y ago
      I, too, think there's a massive conflict in allowing the development agents and their inspectors to be simultaneously franchisees, but if this were to hit court, here's how his defense might play it out: 1) One man's "hit man" is another's "demand for rigorous quality standards". 2) Through years (decades?) of ownership, Mr. Patel has developed a keen sense of what constitutes a high-quality operation and a shop that's cutting corners on quality. His comments were just "suggestions" and "gut feeling" based on his experience being an operator. 3) While he ended up acquiring some of the restaurants, he didn't acquire all of the restaurants closing under his watch. Through his tremendous experience (see above), supplier connections and economies of scale peculiar to a large franchisee, he saw a potential to "clean up the act" under new management and keep the jobs in the community (insert a tear jerker story of some employee extremely happy about such outcome).
icebraining 7y ago
> I'm also pretty disappointed in USA courts: did no judge ever look at these bankrupted immigrants and see someone deserving of justice? What do you expect the judge to do? The contract has an arbitration agreement, and the FAA is quite restrictive on the basis that allow a judge to overrule such a decision. Blame your lawmakers.
roenxi 7y ago
> did no judge ever look at these bankrupted immigrants and see someone deserving of justice? Probably, but identifying the deserving is something we train judges not to do. One of the great achievements of the law is the expectation that whether someone is deserving or not they should be given the same justice as everyone else. If the courts are doing something you don't like, save your disappointment for the lawmakers.
- perfmode 7y ago
  the picture you paint seems to not actually reflect the reality of the american justice system.
  - donteatglitter 7y ago
    I don't see a conflict in what they say and the actuality of what happens overall. How would you describe it?
    - perfmode 7y ago
      in which state do you have the most experience with the justice system?
- nihonde 7y ago
  The whole concept of equity at law is contrary to what you described. In legal systems descended from English tradition, fairness trumps codified or common law.
  - EdwardDiego 7y ago
    Indeed, in NZ a judge will occasionally say "imposing the sentence required by law would be manifestly unjust" and the politicians get annoyed their new three strikes law isn't being used. http://r139.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+11+-+Sentencing+for+homicide/The+three+strikes+provisions http://r139.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+11+-+Sentenc...
  - 7y ago
supergauntlet 7y ago
Yeah, same opinion. Shame they're shit, they were a consistently OK option for roadtrips that wouldn't upset stomachs, but this is pathetic. I guess I'm not surprised that no real consequences have come of it, but wow Subway should be dissolved. This is rot all the way through the organization.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

MrBuddyCasino 7y ago

How is it possible that Mr Patel is not in jail? This is just blatant fraud and corruption.

ninth_ant 7y ago
Surely you understand the difference in burden of proof is different between a compelling news article and a court of law. It’s entirely plausible that he acted ethically and legally at all times and the authors or sources were heavily biased towards a certain editorial conclusion. Please apply some skepticism before reading one article and condemning people to jail.
- MrBuddyCasino 7y ago
  He acquired restaurants personally of owners that were on his target list. This alone is a clear conflict of interest and if not legally, at least ethically very questionable. There is a source saying she was his "hit man". I'm sorry but this does not leave a lot of room for interpretation.
  - prostoalex 7y ago
    I, too, think there's a massive conflict in allowing the development agents and their inspectors to be simultaneously franchisees, but if this were to hit court, here's how his defense might play it out: 1) One man's "hit man" is another's "demand for rigorous quality standards". 2) Through years (decades?) of ownership, Mr. Patel has developed a keen sense of what constitutes a high-quality operation and a shop that's cutting corners on quality. His comments were just "suggestions" and "gut feeling" based on his experience being an operator. 3) While he ended up acquiring some of the restaurants, he didn't acquire all of the restaurants closing under his watch. Through his tremendous experience (see above), supplier connections and economies of scale peculiar to a large franchisee, he saw a potential to "clean up the act" under new management and keep the jobs in the community (insert a tear jerker story of some employee extremely happy about such outcome).

icebraining 7y ago

> I'm also pretty disappointed in USA courts: did no judge ever look at these bankrupted immigrants and see someone deserving of justice? What do you expect the judge to do? The contract has an arbitration agreement, and the FAA is quite restrictive on the basis that allow a judge to overrule such a decision. Blame your lawmakers.

roenxi 7y ago

> did no judge ever look at these bankrupted immigrants and see someone deserving of justice? Probably, but identifying the deserving is something we train judges not to do. One of the great achievements of the law is the expectation that whether someone is deserving or not they should be given the same justice as everyone else. If the courts are doing something you don't like, save your disappointment for the lawmakers.

perfmode 7y ago
the picture you paint seems to not actually reflect the reality of the american justice system.
- donteatglitter 7y ago
  I don't see a conflict in what they say and the actuality of what happens overall. How would you describe it?
  - perfmode 7y ago
    in which state do you have the most experience with the justice system?
nihonde 7y ago
The whole concept of equity at law is contrary to what you described. In legal systems descended from English tradition, fairness trumps codified or common law.
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  Indeed, in NZ a judge will occasionally say "imposing the sentence required by law would be manifestly unjust" and the politicians get annoyed their new three strikes law isn't being used. http://r139.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+11+-+Sentencing+for+homicide/The+three+strikes+provisions http://r139.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+11+-+Sentenc...
- 7y ago

supergauntlet 7y ago

Yeah, same opinion. Shame they're shit, they were a consistently OK option for roadtrips that wouldn't upset stomachs, but this is pathetic. I guess I'm not surprised that no real consequences have come of it, but wow Subway should be dissolved. This is rot all the way through the organization.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]