• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McDonald's to pay $3.75 million in 1st settlement with franchise workers

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
has agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it was liable for labor law violations by a California franchisee, marking what lawyers said was the first time the company has settled legal claims by a group of U.S. workers at one of its franchises.

In a filing in U.S. district court in San Francisco on Friday, lawyers representing about 800 employees at five restaurants owned by a single franchisee said Illinois-based McDonald's would pay the workers $1.75 million in back pay and damages and $2 million in legal fees.

And this is just the first settlement. Look for many more. Takes real scumbags to steal from those who work for them. Good enough reason to boycott the bastards..... Yea, yea, I know, a boycott will never work, but at least you stand a better chance of not kicking the bucket prematurely. Also, I like food that even a wino on skid row, in the final stages of malnutrition, might take a passing interest in.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/mcdo...in-1st-settlement-with-franchise-workers.html
 
The franchisee broke the law (apparently). McDonald's didn't.
 
$2,000,000.00 out of $3,750,000.00 goes to the lawyers? Let's do the math...

$1,750,000.00 divided by 800 employees comes to $2,187.50 each, although some will probably get more and some will get less.

Seems like a major win for the lawyers, and a minor win for the employees. Plus, this was in California which, like NY and only a few other states, has draconian laws regarding employer liability to employees regarding superior corporations to subordinate corporations and other tertiary corporations, so I wouldn't assume that this is going to set a nationwide precedent.

Two million to the lawyers??? Damn, we really need tort reform in this country.
 
And this is just the first settlement. Look for many more. Takes real scumbags to steal from those who work for them. Good enough reason to boycott the bastards..... Yea, yea, I know, a boycott will never work, but at least you stand a better chance of not kicking the bucket prematurely. Also, I like food that even a wino on skid row, in the final stages of malnutrition, might take a passing interest in.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/mcdo...in-1st-settlement-with-franchise-workers.html

If wage theft is that big a deal for you then you should never eat out, as it is extremely common, so much so that it is the norm.
 
If wage theft is that big a deal for you then you should never eat out, as it is extremely common, so much so that it is the norm.

Actually, I don't eat fast food. It belongs in a toilet, not somebody's stomach.
 
$3.75 million. Yeah, I'm sure this $37.9 billion corporation learned its lesson.
 
$3.75 million. Yeah, I'm sure this $37.9 billion corporation learned its lesson.

THis is a big deal actually, in the last year the courts and the DC ELITE have made corporations much more responsible for the crimes of their franchises, under the theory that they know or should know that they are taking place. THis could end franchising as we know it, as the liability shield (to include bankruptcy of the franchise) was one of the major reasons for doing it.
 
$2,000,000.00 out of $3,750,000.00 goes to the lawyers? Let's do the math...

$1,750,000.00 divided by 800 employees comes to $2,187.50 each, although some will probably get more and some will get less.

Seems like a major win for the lawyers, and a minor win for the employees. Plus, this was in California which, like NY and only a few other states, has draconian laws regarding employer liability to employees regarding superior corporations to subordinate corporations and other tertiary corporations, so I wouldn't assume that this is going to set a nationwide precedent.

Two million to the lawyers??? Damn, we really need tort reform in this country.

How much should lawyers get paid? What is a fair hourly wage for a lawyer with a professional degree? How many people worked on the case? And for how long? How much were the filing fees charged by the court?
 
THis is a big deal actually, in the last year the courts and the DC ELITE have made corporations much more responsible for the crimes of their franchises, under the theory that they know or should know that they are taking place. THis could end franchising as we know it, as the liability shield (to include bankruptcy of the franchise) was one of the major reasons for doing it.

But the problem is in cases like McD where the franchisor exerts huge and nearly daily control over the operations of their franchisees. Same with employment temp agencies in my state - big employer hires employment firm to get workers, big employer obviously supervises those workers on an hourly basis, dictates with great detail who to hire, how much they'll pay, the working conditions, etc. then claims to have no responsibility for how they're treated, wages, benefits, etc. all because there is a really fictional layer of corporate ownership put in place.

Obviously there is some balance required here, but I don't have a problem extending liability up the line in cases where the parent corp (franchisor or the company that hires the employment agency) exert a level of control over the process that makes the franchisee or temp agency effectively an agent, as opposed to a legitimately 'independent' company. In those cases the franchisor does or should know.
 
How much should lawyers get paid? What is a fair hourly wage for a lawyer with a professional degree? How many people worked on the case? And for how long? How much were the filing fees charged by the court?

Glad to see you express concern for the well being of the top 1%. Meanwhile, those who actually got screwed by the franchise, get a couple grand a piece for their trouble.
 
But the problem is in cases like McD where the franchisor exerts huge and nearly daily control over the operations of their franchisees. Same with employment temp agencies in my state - big employer hires employment firm to get workers, big employer obviously supervises those workers on an hourly basis, dictates with great detail who to hire, how much they'll pay, the working conditions, etc. then claims to have no responsibility for how they're treated, wages, benefits, etc. all because there is a really fictional layer of corporate ownership put in place.

Obviously there is some balance required here, but I don't have a problem extending liability up the line in cases where the parent corp (franchisor or the company that hires the employment agency) exert a level of control over the process that makes the franchisee or temp agency effectively an agent, as opposed to a legitimately 'independent' company. In those cases the franchisor does or should know.

Balance with justice in mind should be the goal, but this is 2016, normally we jump as fast as we can to the party who has money. If I am the corporation and the courts are going to come after me regardless then I want as much control over the situation as I can.

Franchising might not survive, which would be too bad, because it worked amazing well for America for a lot of decades.
 
How much should lawyers get paid? What is a fair hourly wage for a lawyer with a professional degree? How many people worked on the case? And for how long? How much were the filing fees charged by the court?

Thank you.

Everyone likes to bash lawyers until they need one.

My advice to the bashers is to go ahead and handle your own case. See what happens.
 
Glad to see you express concern for the well being of the top 1%. Meanwhile, those who actually got screwed by the franchise, get a couple grand a piece for their trouble.


Well that's not very libertarian of you. Who are you to say how much someone should get paid? Doesn't the market dictate prices?

If you ever get into legal hot water over something, you can handle the case yourself. I encourage you to do so.
 
Balance with justice in mind should be the goal, but this is 2016, normally we jump as fast as we can to the party who has money. If I am the corporation and the courts are going to come after me regardless then I want as much control over the situation as I can.

Franchising might not survive, which would be too bad, because it worked amazing well for America for a lot of decades.

It it will survive and flourish, but each has legal responsibilities.
 
Balance with justice in mind should be the goal, but this is 2016, normally we jump as fast as we can to the party who has money. If I am the corporation and the courts are going to come after me regardless then I want as much control over the situation as I can.

Franchising might not survive, which would be too bad, because it worked amazing well for America for a lot of decades.

OK, but you're jumping a step. Attributing liability to the corporation came AFTER years or decades of them exerting near total control on supposedly "unrelated" entities, and who then used those entities who operated solely at the whim and direction of the corporation to hide from liability.

And nothing I've seen should threaten the idea of 'franchising.' McD isn't stupid or unable to control it's franchisees, and if it's important to McD that the franchisees treat union organizing employees according to the law, they can make that happen like they make sure the hamburgers get thrown away after X minutes and the fries are cooked for exactly Y seconds, etc....
 
Actually, I don't eat fast food. It belongs in a toilet, not somebody's stomach.

well.. my stomache puts it in the toilet so it does still get there...
 
Thank you.

Everyone likes to bash lawyers until they need one.

My advice to the bashers is to go ahead and handle your own case. See what happens.

Who could ever hate or not trust this guy?

imgres.jpg
 
But the problem is in cases like McD where the franchisor exerts huge and nearly daily control over the operations of their franchisees. Same with employment temp agencies in my state - big employer hires employment firm to get workers, big employer obviously supervises those workers on an hourly basis, dictates with great detail who to hire, how much they'll pay, the working conditions, etc. then claims to have no responsibility for how they're treated, wages, benefits, etc. all because there is a really fictional layer of corporate ownership put in place.

Obviously there is some balance required here, but I don't have a problem extending liability up the line in cases where the parent corp (franchisor or the company that hires the employment agency) exert a level of control over the process that makes the franchisee or temp agency effectively an agent, as opposed to a legitimately 'independent' company. In those cases the franchisor does or should know.

Not sure how it works in the US but at our Prov Supreme Court level they will often look to other Provinces SC rulings, sometimes they agree, other times they do not.
 
OK, but you're jumping a step. Attributing liability to the corporation came AFTER years or decades of them exerting near total control on supposedly "unrelated" entities, and who then used those entities who operated solely at the whim and direction of the corporation to hide from liability.

And nothing I've seen should threaten the idea of 'franchising.' McD isn't stupid or unable to control it's franchisees, and if it's important to McD that the franchisees treat union organizing employees according to the law, they can make that happen like they make sure the hamburgers get thrown away after X minutes and the fries are cooked for exactly Y seconds, etc....

You are right, I am jumping ahead, because I am predicting that the courts and lawmakers will go to that well over and over again, blaming the brand owner for what the franchises do, in large part because it is the brand owners who have the money.
 
The franchisee broke the law (apparently). McDonald's didn't.

Both did. McD controls everything down to napkins and everything is listed in fine detail. To think that this would then let them knowingly ignore labor laws and other violations by one of their franchisees is ludicrous.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/mcdo...in-1st-settlement-with-franchise-workers.html
The settlement, which must be approved by a federal judge, comes as McDonald's faces claims before two U.S. agencies that it is a "joint employer" of workers at franchise restaurants, a designation that could make the company liable for legal violations by franchisees and require that it bargain with workers who unionize.
 
You are right, I am jumping ahead, because I am predicting that the courts and lawmakers will go to that well over and over again, blaming the brand owner for what the franchises do, in large part because it is the brand owners who have the money.

But only when it's the same brand owners who rule over their franchisees with an iron fist, and which makes the franchisees effectively function as agents rather than 'independent' entities.

It's possible this will be abused but so was, IMO, using these sub entities to shield the brand from liability.
 
Both did. McD controls everything down to napkins and everything is listed in fine detail. To think that this would then let them knowingly ignore labor laws and other violations by one of their franchisees is ludicrous.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/mcdo...in-1st-settlement-with-franchise-workers.html

No, the franchisees are their own, separate businesses, under license contract, which includes uniform standards for representing the brand. The employees of the franchisee are not employees of McDonald's Inc. They don't get paid by McDonald's. McDonald's doesn't withhold taxes nor pay payroll taxes on them.
 
And this is just the first settlement. Look for many more. Takes real scumbags to steal from those who work for them. Good enough reason to boycott the bastards..... Yea, yea, I know, a boycott will never work, but at least you stand a better chance of not kicking the bucket prematurely. Also, I like food that even a wino on skid row, in the final stages of malnutrition, might take a passing interest in.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/mcdo...in-1st-settlement-with-franchise-workers.html

I'm fairly certain McDonalds has over $3.75 million behind one of the cushions in their living room couch.
 
No, the franchisees are their own, separate businesses, under license contract, which includes uniform standards for representing the brand. The employees of the franchisee are not employees of McDonald's Inc. They don't get paid by McDonald's. McDonald's doesn't withhold taxes nor pay payroll taxes on them.

Not paying directly or withholding taxes is normal. That is for the Franchisee to do. Along with a host of rules, regulations and standards to adhere to. And adhering to all laws in that State, whether State Or Fed would be and are included in those agreements.
They are joint employees.
 
Not paying directly or withholding taxes is normal. That is for the Franchisee to do.

Yes, because the franchisee is the business owner.

Along with a host of rules, regulations and standards to adhere to. And adhering to all laws in that State, whether State Or Fed would be and are included in those agreements.
They are joint employees.

No. They're not "joint employees" just because you want them to be, nor because the Obama NLRB and Big Labor want to get their meathooks into unionizing them as if they are. Which, of course, is what this is REALLY about.
 
Back
Top Bottom