Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Tuesday that McDonald's could be held jointly liable for labor and wage violations by its franchise operators -- a decision that, if upheld, would disrupt longtime practices in the fast-food industry and ease the way for unionizing nationwide. Richard F. Griffin Jr., the labor board's general counsel, said he found merit in 43 of the 181 claims, accusing McDonald's restaurants of illegally firing, threatening or otherwise penalizing workers for their pro-labor activities. "Employers like McDonald's seek to avoid recognizing the rights of their employees by claiming that they are not really their employer, despite exercising control over crucial aspects of the employment relationship," said Julius Getman, a labor law professor at the University of Texas. "McDonald's should no longer be able to hide behind its franchisees."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The ruling comes after the labor board's legal team investigated myriad complaints that fast-food workers brought in the last 20 months, accusing McDonald's and its franchisees of unfair labor practices.

In those cases, Griffin said he would include McDonald's as a joint employer, a classification that could hold the company responsible for actions taken at thousands of its restaurants. Roughly 90 percent of the chain's restaurants in the United States are franchise operations.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Employers like McDonald's seek to avoid recognizing the rights of their employees by claiming that they are not really their employer, despite exercising control over crucial aspects of the employment relationship," said Julius Getman, a labor law professor at the University of Texas. "McDonald's should no longer be able to hide behind its franchisees."

"... lawyers for the workers asserted that considering McDonald's influence over its franchisees, the decision merely recognized reality.

"McDonald's can try to hide behind its franchisees, but today's determination by the N.L.R.B. shows there's no two ways about it: The Golden Arches is an employer, plain and simple," said Micah Wissinger, a lawyer who filed complaints on behalf of several McDonald's employees in New York.

"The reality is that McDonald's requires franchisees to adhere to such regimented rules and regulations that there's no doubt who's really in charge."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 12:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

No doubt that McDonald's has been doing a great job of what's called "giving them the runaround."

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think all Americans who are part of the working class ought to support the McDonalds workers and ALL OTHER WORKERS TRYING TO UNIONIZE. We have allowed our incomes to stagnate for 30 years while the top few percent have become massively wealthy, if we don't start fighting back now then when will we? How bad does it have to get before average American workers start having a little respect for themselves?

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I think all Americans who are part of the working class ought to support the McDonalds workers and ALL OTHER WORKERS TRYING TO UNIONIZE. We have allowed our incomes to stagnate for 30 years while the top few percent have become massively wealthy, if we don't start fighting back now then when will we? How bad does it have to get before average American workers start having a little respect for themselves?

#3 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Cuba is just a boatride away comrade.

"Working class" -another made up word to drive emotions by the left. VERY few people don't have to work to live. It's about as accurate term as "reproductive rights" is in relation to abortion. Of course, DANNI thinks toilet scrubbers who don't speak english and have a third grade education should make as much as doctors - so that should always be considered when reading her posts on income equality.

#4 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-07-30 10:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

We have allowed our incomes to stagnate for 30 years while the top few percent have become massively wealthy, if we don't start fighting back now then when will we?

On the backs of massive illegal immigration.

How bad does it have to get before average American workers start having a little respect for themselves?
#3 | Posted by danni

They are starting too, but you and your ilk call them racists, some even equate them to Nazis.

The middle class, the "working class", is shrinking, they vote GOP. Says pretty much all you need to know about what they think about the lefts concern and diatribes.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-30 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

A working class hero is something to be.

#6 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-07-30 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

The middle class, the "working class", is shrinking, they vote GOP.

Is this the middle class Romney was referring to, the one that starts at $200,000?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is this the middle class Romney was referring to, the one that starts at $200,000?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously if they "make" money they are working.

#8 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-30 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#4 Rush would be so proud! Ascribing absurd statements to others to prove how 'wrong' they are.

Go have some Oxy and celebrate!

#9 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-07-30 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9

In the Bahamas!

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-30 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is this the middle class Romney was referring to, the one that starts at $200,000?
#7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No - Middle-income voters – those with family incomes between $50000 and $74999 – favor the GOP candidate by a wide margin (57% to 33%)
www.drudge.com

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-07-30 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see you've replaced middle class with middle income. Carry on.

"The middle class is a class of people in the middle of a societal hierarchy. In Weberian socio-economic terms, the middle class is the broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socio-economically between the working class and upper class." en.wikipedia.org

"Plenty of smart people have taken a stab at that question. In the past few years, the "middle class" income range has been described as between $32,900 and $64,000 a year (a Pew Charitable Trusts study), between $50,800 and $122,000 (a U.S. Department of Commerce study), and between $20,600 and $102,000 (the U.S. Census Bureau's middle 60% of incomes)." www.usatoday.com

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Funny is watching people that claim to be concerned about stagnant wages in America being so vehemently against a Union that will get the workers better wages.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2014-07-30 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

"Is this the middle class Romney was referring to, the one that starts at $200,000?"

Romney claimed middle class starts at $200K?

"I see you've replaced middle class with middle income. Carry on."

so does everybody.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-30 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A working class hero is something to be."

I've always figured that the more hours you worked, the greater the claim you had to the title of "working class."

After all, isn't a professional who puts in 50-60 hours per week actually "working" more than a union guy who clocks out at 40 hours per week?

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-30 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Funny is watching people that claim to be concerned about stagnant wages in America being so vehemently against a Union that will get the workers better wages."

Yeah. It's a real travesty that teenagers aren't paid more. Society is really leaving them in a bind by not paying them $15 an hour.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-30 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Romney claimed middle class starts at $200K?

"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.

www.dailykos.com

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've always figured that the more hours you worked, the greater the claim you had to the title of "working class."

Of course you did. How could you not?

"The middle class is a class of people in the middle of a societal hierarchy. In Weberian socio-economic terms, the middle class is the broad group of people in contemporary society who fall socio-economically between the working class and upper class." en.wikipedia.org

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17

So, it appears the only one who replaced middle class with middle income was you, by misquoting Mitt Romney.

#19 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-30 05:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

so does everybody.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18

I get what you're saying, we didn't come up with the definitions, but it is something of a misnomer.

Sort of like progressives being called "liberals," when most are anything but liberal. You may as well call fascists liberal.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-30 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#20

everybody misquotes Mitt Romney?

no, but a select few here do.

I don't know what Romney meant when he classified the income the way he did in that interview. I don't care either...as I was turned off by him before that.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-30 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sort of like progressives being called "liberals," when most are anything but liberal. You may as well call fascists liberal.
#21

I think you'd do better calling fascists progressive. www.politicususa.com

Liberalism is a set of ideals grounded in the social contract (rule by consent of the governed for mutual benefit), both negative liberty (freedom from unreasonable interference) and positive liberty (access to basic resources to pursue one's goals), and both equality in law (legal rights and privileges), and equality of opportunity (social mobility). Liberalism is an ideology, and over three hundred years of history have shown that it can be robust and successful. Indeed the past three centuries can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of liberal ideals.
...
Progressivism is a problem-solving method. Historians generally date Progressive Era as 1890-1920, but the progressive method did not end with that date. The progressive method is not an ideology but a pragmatic search for solutions that work, grounded in a healthy skepticism. Thus, for example, Prohibition was a progressive project and was based on the social science of that era, but "The Great Experiment" of Prohibition failed in practice and progressives also worked for its repeal. The 20th century can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of the progressive method.

Yet, again, progressive governments have at times stumbled. Some have applied the progressive method toward horrific, illiberal ends, such as the Tuskegee Experiment, the Holocaust, and Project MK-ULTRA. And the progressive method is susceptible to the paralysis of analysis, to public demands for boldness and confidence, and to being out-spun by voices who don't need data to justify criticism.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The hard truth is in non-union shops, you earn what you are worth to the employer and how much would it cost to replace you. In union shops, you earn based on tenure. How long does it take working at a fast food place to become an expert at dropping bags of fries or flipping burgers? 2 days?

These are entry level jobs. If anyone is working at a fast food joint more than 1 year and is not a manager, they have serious skills issues.

#24 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-30 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Progressivism is a problem-solving method.

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-07-30 05:29 PM | FLAG:

Progressives/Democrats control almost every major urban center. Why have most middle class families moved to the suburbs?

#25 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-30 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Progressives/Democrats control almost every major urban center. Why have most middle class families moved to the suburbs?
#25 | Posted by RobThomas

I dunno, because they're afraid of black people?
Maybe you should ask them. You could start with your parents, presuming they fit the demographic.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Considering the horrible treatment some fast food workers endure this may be a good thing.

#27 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-30 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unions provide some serious balance in power between moneyed elites and the politicians they own, and the masses of Americans with less and less money and power every day.

#28 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-30 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans need unions because they do not have a chance to compete in a free market of legal American labor. Crooked politicians and their crony oligarchs who want open borders and no controls have seen to that. You see they want Americans competing with what amounts to pirated illegal labor. Hollywood and big business should be required to get a sense of the unfairness in this by being required to compete with pirated products.

#29 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-30 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

" In union shops, you earn based on tenure."

That may be one criteria but a much more important one is that you work for the amount of money and benefits that your union is able to negotiate for you as a collective group instead of as an individual with virtually now power in the negotiation at all. With a union the owners of the place of employment get to choose between coming to an acceptable agreement with labor or doing without labor. Unless you happen to be rich why do you not want labor to have power in such negotiations? Why do you want employers to have 100% of the power?

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hollywood and big business should be required to get a sense of the unfairness in this by being required to compete with pirated products."

Great idea. I never thought of that before.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good news I cant wait to see the new automated burger kings.

The new automated restaurants likely wont get our orders wrong and we wont have to tip them.

Just what we need more unions eliminating more workers.

#32 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-30 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wouldn't it be great if franchises just went out of business and it would be like it was in the 60s with hamburger restaurants locally owned and exempt from federal rules.

Well if you keep pushing all these rules that's what you will get.

#33 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-30 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wouldn't it be great if franchises just went out of business and it would be like it was in the 60s with hamburger restaurants locally owned and exempt from federal rules.

I like the locally owned and operated but not the idea of exemption from federal rules. Pay the minimum wage, provide the lawful breaks and protections employees can expect in the USA. If you can't do those things you shouldn't be in business in the first place.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#30...."Why do you want employers to have 100% of the power?"

Because they are the ones who have put their capital at risk.

#35 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2014-07-30 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#30...."Why do you want employers to have 100% of the power?"
Because they are the ones who have put their capital at risk."

They put their capital at risk well I have worked for several companies that went bankrupt, I put my "TIME" at risk. I'm now in my sixties, that "time" in my thirties was quite valuable to me but I never recieved any payment.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

That may be one criteria but a much more important one is that you work for the amount of money and benefits that your union is able to negotiate for you as a collective group instead of as an individual with virtually now power in the negotiation at all/
#30 | Posted by danni

Sadly, Danni, those contracts ain't what they used to be. I worked under one a few years ago. Ten cents an hour over minimum wage. After 1000 hours I was scheduled to get a twenty-five cent raise, but since my state had raised minimum wage by more than thirty-five cents since the contract was written, I got nothing. I could technically be on the schedule anytime from 6AM - 10PM seven days a week but only got scheduled for about 25 of those hours on a given week, making it nearly impossible to hold a steady second job, which I didn't.

The job did have long-term prospects but not everybody has time for that ship to come in. I saw a number of competent workers leave simply because they couldn't get by on what was being offered. I would have gone up the ranks to earn about $17/hr if I had stayed another six months or so, but still only been working around 25-30 hours a week for the next few years.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-30 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 What that comment is saying, to any educated individual, is that middle incomes ceiling is somewhere between 200k - 250k while the full range of middle income is below that ceiling.

He was clearly stating that 100K was not the ceiling for considering something middle income, 200 - 250K was the ceiling and middle income was from that ceiling down.

How is that hard to comprehend?

#38 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-07-31 07:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

They put their capital at risk well I have worked for several companies that went bankrupt, I put my "TIME" at risk. I'm now in my sixties, that "time" in my thirties was quite valuable to me but I never recieved any payment.

#36 | POSTED BY DANNI

So have I, that is why I started my own business.

#39 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-07-31 10:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

They put their capital at risk well I have worked for several companies that went bankrupt, I put my "TIME" at risk. I'm now in my sixties, that "time" in my thirties was quite valuable to me but I never recieved any payment.

#36 | POSTED BY DANNI

If you'd had any gumption you would have gotten a better job.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-31 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"They put their capital at risk well I have worked for several companies that went bankrupt, I put my "TIME" at risk. I'm now in my sixties, that "time" in my thirties was quite valuable to me but I never recieved any payment."

Capital is not the factor of production that workers provide to the wealth creation process. Workers provide labor, in much the same way that suppliers provide the necessary materials. If an employer chooses not to purchase your labor, it's no harm to you. Your labor is still yours to do with as you choose. It would be no different than that same employer electing not to purchase materials from a supplier. the supplier still has those materials, and the fact that one purchaser decided not to buy them does not change their value.

I'm assuming that you were provided with your agreed upon remuneration when you were working in your thirties. If you provided labor but were not in return provided with the agreed upon wages and benefits, that's a different story.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-07-31 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you want employers to have 100% of the power?

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-30 08:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Absurd and ridiculous. If you don't like the pay or working conditions - don't work there. The left always assumes they are OWED a job. It's a failed baseline for discussion on employment with those who live in reality.

#42 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-07-31 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I for one am all for this. Once a fast food combo costs $25, I won't be able to afford the occasional trip through the drive-through. Of course they won't be open all the time due to mandatory breaks. And they won't be able to fire them for failing to show up for work because they're hung over, so the lines will be longer...

Yep. Definitely a good thing for dieters.

#43 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-31 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

haha...whats funny is the ad just above the reply box here...

McDonald's Job Application
mcdonalds.careerboutique.com
It's not too late to apply! Apply online, and start tomorrow

Is Rcade selling target specific ads? haha

#44 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-31 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

HAHAHA!!

Now it says:

Open Your Own Franchise!

hhahaha!

#45 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-31 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

That may be one criteria but a much more important one is that you work for the amount of money and benefits that your union is able to negotiate for you as a collective group instead of as an individual with virtually now power in the negotiation at all.

#30 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-07-30 08:04 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

In non union jobs, your power is relative to your value in the free marketplace, how easily you can be replaced and your value to the company.

In union jobs, none of these individual traits matter.

Talk about living on the plantation.

#46 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-31 04:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I dunno, because they're afraid of black people?
Maybe you should ask them. You could start with your parents, presuming they fit the demographic.

#26 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-07-30 06:42 PM | REPLY | FLAG

So assumptive. So racist.

#47 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-07-31 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what was your parents answer, anyway?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-31 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort