McDonald’s plans to contest the ruling. This could affect other fast food chains. It could also affect retail businesses and the decision has prompted the National Retail Federation to issue a statement: “The last thing this economy needs is decisions like this which merely serve to stall job growth and diminish much needed capital investment”.
Good ruling or bad (legally, economically, ethically)?
What are McDonald’s options in contesting this? How long could it be tied up in the courts?
Is this ruling general enough to have wide effects in other industries or does McDonald’s (or the fast food industry in general) have some unique franchise arrangement that makes this ruling possible only in their case?
Will it ease the way for unions in service jobs?
I don’t know, and this is just an interjection because I haven’t found somewhere else to put it, but I work across the street from the flagship store (not the Ur-Mac’s, which is in Des Plaines, but the closest to corporate). There was a big demonstration to demand a living wage scheduled to be held there, but magically and I am sure coincidentally they closed the store that day and refinished the parking lot so there was no place to hold it. I am happy there was this ruling against those jerks, though as a company store this one is not affected.
The fallout from this ruling will be interesting. It does my heart proud to live in a country where the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is less than when I started working in 1969. ETA: And even less for people under 18, as I was.
Is it correct that company stores aren’t affected? While one could argue that franchise employees aren’t McDonald’s employees (though this ruling says otherwise) it seems like there’s no question about company store employees. They definitely work for McDonald’s, right?
What it will do is incentivize corporate to make sure to train franchises on employment law, put policies in place so franchises don’t take advantage of employees, and develop systems that are employment law (not employee) friendly. Things like this:
I think it might make things easier for unions if it makes it possible to unionize McDonald’s as a whole rather than having to unionize each individual franchise.
Yes, but they were McDonald’s employees before this decision , so there is no change and they aren’t affected. McDonalds’ was always responsible for unfair labor practices etc regarding those stores.
About the union issue- I don’t see how this could possibly make organizing a union easier. If the employees can vote in a union based on location ( and I think they can, so that location A can be unionized while location B is not) , it’s no different than it was before. If this means that either all McDonald’s location are union or none are, it’s going to be much more difficult to get a union in simply becasue of the numbers involved. If more than half of the employees at McDonald’s on Elm street vote for the union, and half of those on Main street do, then those two locations have a union regardless of how the other locations vote . But if it’s all or none, when you add in the McDonald’s on Maple and the one on Grove where more than half voted *against *the union, it may turn out that fewer than half of the combined employees vote for the union and therefore none of them are unionized.
Having more unions and stronger labor is always a better thing morally and ethically. While companies in the short term may be near-sighted and punish people economically, in the long run, having a wealthier population of consumers would benefit everyone economically.
The point does not seem to be combining votes, but in holding McDonalds the corporate entity responsible for unfair labor practices, such as retaliation against union organizers, done by its franchisees. Since McDonalds has deeper pockets than its franchisees, and might pick up bad publicity in places that support unions, they are going to have an incentive to rein in their franchisees. So it should help, unless you think that the threat of retaliation has no impact on the success of organizing.
Those people represent an insignificant fraction of all union members. And multiply their crimes by a hundred and you wouldn’t equal the harm of embezzling millions by the CEOs of some failed companies. Unions are always a net good, always
I wouldn’t say that the threat of retaliation has no impact on the success of organizing, but I think the high turnover and the fact that few people envision spending their entire working life in the fast-food industry have a much bigger impact. Even if no franchisees engaged in unfair labor practices unions would have a very difficult time organizing fast-food workers.
I agree with you sleestak and admire the rigor and dexterity with which you’ve assessed the situation. Surely you feel the same way about the types of organizations from which these 6 thugs sprang?