undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbmm6o9y ago0 comments

This is wildly inaccurate. It seems like you've taken the arguments against e.g. Uber assumed that they apply to McDonald's. The employees not being McDonald's employees is a consequence of the franchise model, not some nefarious plot to strip them of rights. They are so clearly "employees" and not "contractors" that not even the most disruptive SV company would attempt to push that past the IRS.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

digler9999y ago· 2 in thread

> a consequence of the franchise model

what a coincidence that a "consequence of the franchise model" is the inability to unionize, since each franchise is owned independently. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the structuring of the franchise, does it ?

bmm6oOP9y ago

It's true that the franchise model is in practice an impediment to unionization. But this argument represents a huge shifting of the goalposts from your original incorrect claim that they are contractors and not employees.

dilemma9y ago

They can still unionize because they are still employees. Franchising is a perfectly normal business structure in industries like fast food and supermarkets, just like cooperatives exists certain other industries.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse