Trump Rolls Back Anti-Franchising Regs

#1
F

Franklin Pierce

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Messages
25,128
Likes
28,321
#1
Franchise businesses received a significant boost from the Trump administration on Friday as labor regulators began to unravel one of the Obama administration's most controversial employment policies.

The National Labor Relations Board is considering a proposal to reinstate the long-standing interpretation of the joint-employer standard, which maintains that parent or umbrella companies are not liable for labor violations committed solely by franchisees or subcontractors. The Obama administration had scrapped the traditional standard in an effort to hold parent companies accountable even if they played no direct role in the workplace violation, giving labor unions a foot in the door for bargaining with national companies like McDonald's rather than with locally owned franchisees.

"Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship," the agency said in an announcement. "The National Labor Relations Act's intent is best supported by a joint-employer doctrine that does not draw third parties, who have not played an active role in deciding wages, benefits, or other essential terms and conditions of employment, into a collective-bargaining relationship for another employer's employees."

Trump Rolls Back Anti-Franchising Regs
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, BigOrangeD, NorthDallas40 and 5 others
#3
#3
Good move. Franchisers aren't responsible for franchisees.
 
#4
#4
Franklin Pierce said:
Franchise businesses received a significant boost from the Trump administration on Friday as labor regulators began to unravel one of the Obama administration's most controversial employment policies.

The National Labor Relations Board is considering a proposal to reinstate the long-standing interpretation of the joint-employer standard, which maintains that parent or umbrella companies are not liable for labor violations committed solely by franchisees or subcontractors. The Obama administration had scrapped the traditional standard in an effort to hold parent companies accountable even if they played no direct role in the workplace violation, giving labor unions a foot in the door for bargaining with national companies like McDonald's rather than with locally owned franchisees.

"Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship," the agency said in an announcement. "The National Labor Relations Act's intent is best supported by a joint-employer doctrine that does not draw third parties, who have not played an active role in deciding wages, benefits, or other essential terms and conditions of employment, into a collective-bargaining relationship for another employer's employees."

Trump Rolls Back Anti-Franchising Regs
Click to expand...


Good info.
 
#5
#5
As a former franchise owner, this is absolutely the correct thing to do. The individual franchisee is 100% responsible for their own employees.
 
#9
#9
When it’s all said and done I may have to go visit the eventual Obama Presidential Library just to read first the first hand legislation summary.

Blah Blah Act 1
Legislation passed 2009
Legislation repealed 2017

Blah Blah Act 2
Legislation passed 2010
Legislation repealed 2018

Executive Order Blah 1
Enacted 2009
Pen and phone thrown away Jan 21, 2017

(Stealth edit: Barry wasn’t in office in ‘04 or ‘05)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol
#11
#11
McDad said:
Have you or anyone you know well been a franchisee?
Click to expand...

Yes. Most of the agreements are carefully structured to avoid such entanglements, but I believe H&R Block got stung a few years ago due to the actions of a franchisee.
 
#12
#12
ClearwaterVol said:
Yes. Most of the agreements are carefully structured to avoid such entanglements, but I believe H&R Block got stung a few years ago due to the actions of a franchisee.
Click to expand...
Understood. Counter point, just because H&R got stung doesnt mean all franchise relationships should automatically bring liability to the franchiser.

The franchises I've looked into and the few my friend in Georgia owns have outlined very clearly the responsibilities and liability of both parties.
 
#13
#13
My father was a franchisee when I was growing up. He had the '5 and dime' store in the small town. While he was solely responsible for his employees and his actions regarding them, the franchiser exerted immense pressure on him regarding the business which eventually lead to his bankruptcy. I realize that it is an apples and watermelons comparison to this particular argument, but I do see CWV's point to a degree. That being said though, this is absolutely the correct move to get rid of more Obama idiocy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#14
#14
SpaceCoastVol said:
My father was a franchisee when I was growing up. He had the '5 and dime' store in the small town. While he was solely responsible for his employees and his actions regarding them, the franchiser exerted immense pressure on him regarding the business which eventually lead to his bankruptcy. I realize that it is an apples and watermelons comparison to this particular argument, but I do see CWV's point to a degree. That being said though, this is absolutely the correct move to get rid of more Obama idiocy
Click to expand...

McDad said:
Understood. Counter point, just because H&R got stung doesnt mean all franchise relationships should automatically bring liability to the franchiser.

The franchises I've looked into and the few my friend in Georgia owns have outlined very clearly the responsibilities and liability of both parties.
Click to expand...

Most do, however, if they don't behave in the manner that is contractually agreed to then you might be able to attach liability to the parent company.
 
#18
#18
T-TownVol said:
Go after the "deep pockets", gotcha. That is what attorneys do, correct?
Click to expand...

Despite their claims otherwise the right wingers really try to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

Out of curiosity... Here is a hypothetical for you.

Let's say Franchisor has a Franchisee and as part of their agreement Franchisee must use all products sold by Franchisor and when updates are required at the restaurant, Franchisee must adhere to all specs set forth by Franchisor. Franchisor sells floor cleaner to Franchisee for many years without incident. Franchisor, as part of an update, requires Franchisee to replace floors with an updated modern material that is supposed to be more durable.

After the floors are updated, a customer comes and slips and breaks her hip and fractures her skull. After this accident it is discovered that the floor cleaner leaves an invisible residue on the floor which causes them to be extremely slick for people wearing shoes that do not have a rubber sole. The customer has hospital bills in excess of $650,000.00. Who is liable for her injuries?
 
#19
#19
ClearwaterVol said:
Most do, however, if they don't behave in the manner that is contractually agreed to then you might be able to attach liability to the parent company.
Click to expand...
So your solution is to have the big bad .gov oversee it all and protect us cradle to grave, right? Should be lots of lawyerin' to be done for generations. The .gov has a bottomless pit of money, and when clients bleed out you move on to the next poor sap that would be foolish enough to think he could win.
 
#20
#20
ClearwaterVol said:
Despite their claims otherwise the right wingers really try to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

Out of curiosity... Here is a hypothetical for you.

Let's say Franchisor has a Franchisee and as part of their agreement Franchisee must use all products sold by Franchisor and when updates are required at the restaurant, Franchisee must adhere to all specs set forth by Franchisor. Franchisor sells floor cleaner to Franchisee for many years without incident. Franchisor, as part of an update, requires Franchisee to replace floors with an updated modern material that is supposed to be more durable.

After the floors are updated, a customer comes and slips and breaks her hip and fractures her skull. After this accident it is discovered that the floor cleaner leaves an invisible residue on the floor which causes them to be extremely slick for people wearing shoes that do not have a rubber sole. The customer has hospital bills in excess of $650,000.00. Who is liable for her injuries?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. She has free health care.

Thanks Obama.
 
#21
#21
ClearwaterVol said:
Despite their claims otherwise the right wingers really try to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

Out of curiosity... Here is a hypothetical for you.

Let's say Franchisor has a Franchisee and as part of their agreement Franchisee must use all products sold by Franchisor and when updates are required at the restaurant, Franchisee must adhere to all specs set forth by Franchisor. Franchisor sells floor cleaner to Franchisee for many years without incident. Franchisor, as part of an update, requires Franchisee to replace floors with an updated modern material that is supposed to be more durable.

After the floors are updated, a customer comes and slips and breaks her hip and fractures her skull. After this accident it is discovered that the floor cleaner leaves an invisible residue on the floor which causes them to be extremely slick for people wearing shoes that do not have a rubber sole. The customer has hospital bills in excess of $650,000.00. Who is liable for her injuries?
Click to expand...

Both........that is what attorneys do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#22
#22
ClearwaterVol said:
Despite their claims otherwise the right wingers really try to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

Out of curiosity... Here is a hypothetical for you.

Let's say Franchisor has a Franchisee and as part of their agreement Franchisee must use all products sold by Franchisor and when updates are required at the restaurant, Franchisee must adhere to all specs set forth by Franchisor. Franchisor sells floor cleaner to Franchisee for many years without incident. Franchisor, as part of an update, requires Franchisee to replace floors with an updated modern material that is supposed to be more durable.

After the floors are updated, a customer comes and slips and breaks her hip and fractures her skull. After this accident it is discovered that the floor cleaner leaves an invisible residue on the floor which causes them to be extremely slick for people wearing shoes that do not have a rubber sole. The customer has hospital bills in excess of $650,000.00. Who is liable for her injuries?
Click to expand...

Franchisee.
 
#25
#25
T-TownVol said:
And then the franchisee sues the franchisor who sues the floor cleaners company..........all at the advise of their attorney of course.
Click to expand...

I say Franchisee for signing such a one-sided agreement in the first place.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top