The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source

Log In / Register | Jul 16, 2018

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Unions won't help

Baffled visitor: "I'm baffled why the SEIU mopes"

That is a nice try to scare your franchisor that the boogeyman is coming so it should settle with franchisees. It won't work this time. The SEIU isn't interested in c-stores. Speaking of which, has the UFCW ever unionized a single c-store? They've been always focused on big supermarkets.

The SEIU's advocacy to look at joint-employer liability for QSR franchisors certainly won't happen now in this political environment. In case you haven't heard, any initial efforts by the NLRB to modernize the standard to allow franchisors less control of franchises have been essentially reversed.

False zee who is actually employee is NOT same as joint-employer

An employee who his employer mischaracterizes as a franchisee so that the employer does not have to put them on the payroll is not the same legal issue as a joint employer, where both the franchise owner and the franchisor have joint say -- and thus joint liability when they do something wrong -- in the employment practices of the franchise owner's employees.

McDonald's has a joint-employer problem where McDonald's Corp may be liable for employees at a business owner's franchised restaurant because of the degree of control they have over that franchisee's employees; however, that problem is NOT what 7-Eleven franchisees are saying.

7-Eleven franchisees are saying that they are NOT business owners but rather that they should be recognized for what they legally are — i.e. employees of 7-Eleven Inc., which has miscategorized its employees as so-called franchised business owners so that it does not have to pay these individuals a salary and benefits. Under the law, employees should actually receive pay and benefits from an employer as opposed to business owners who control their business assets to try to eek out a return on their business investment.

If these so-called franchisees win, 7-Eleven Inc. either recognizes the franchisees for what they are, general manager employees in a company-owned store, and it gives them a salary and back pay. OR, 7-Eleven Inc going forward decides to back away from control of store-level cash flow and assets so that it does not have to multiply its payroll expenses by having the former franchisees now be paid a salary by it. It backs away enough so that the business owners truly own an independent business, where their owners have the ability to own and control those convenience stores, THEIR c-stores.

7-11 is a Joint Employer Model Case

I'm baffled why the SEIU mopes and their satellite ROC office mopes are chasing after McDonalds when 7-11 is the actual joint employer.

7-11 abuses its franchisees and ACTUALLY treats then like employees, and they make less than minimum wage after 7-11 sucks their accounts automatically every week by ACH

Tone deaf for 7-11 to sue its employees /"franchisees"

Post new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Add new comment