Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

okaawhatever

(9,462 posts)
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 03:49 PM Dec 2014

McDonald's violated worker rights: NLRB

Source: CNN

A government labor watchdog has accused McDonald's and some franchise owners of violating workers rights by retaliating against them for taking part in fast food protests.

The National Labor Relations Board said in several complaints filed Friday that McDonald's (MCD) and franchise owners subjected workers to "discriminatory discipline" for participating in nationwide protests aimed at raising pay in the fast food industry.

According to the NLRB's general counsel, the restaurant owners reduced hours and discharged some workers who took part in the movement. The company also engaged in other "coercive conduct" designed to punish employees, including surveillance, interrogations and restricting worker's ability to communicate with union representatives.

SNIP

McDonald's said in a statement that it will contest the allegations. The company also said that the government agency "improperly and dramatically strike at the heart of the franchise system -- a system that creates economic opportunity, jobs and income for thousands of business owners and their employees across the country."

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/nlrb-mconalds-franchise/index.html?iid=HP_LN



Go NLRB!!!
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cstanleytech

(26,298 posts)
3. In a nutshell? Yes. But its not just McDonalds doing this to their employees and imo what is
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:36 PM
Dec 2014

really needed is a large single union for all retail workers.
That way the majority of retailers would have a hard time playing their favorite game of "Lets see who can screw over their employees the most".

jmowreader

(50,560 posts)
4. No, that's not the most important thing retail workers need
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:46 PM
Dec 2014

The most important thing is the abolishment of routine "flexible scheduling."

At this point in time, a retailer can, completely legally, schedule someone to work Monday from 2pm to 11pm, Tuesday from 6am to 3pm, Wednesday from 9am to 6pm, give him off Thursday and Friday, then 2pm to 11pm on Saturday and 7am to 4pm on Sunday. And then the next week give him a completely different set of hours, which will be announced the Friday before the work week.

cstanleytech

(26,298 posts)
6. Yup my brother has had to put up with that BS for decades which is why
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:58 PM
Dec 2014

I support a law that would make it so if you work less than 40 hours a week that your employer cannot schedule you for another shift without 12 hours between them also the should be required by law to respect your hours of availability if you dont average over 40 hours a week.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
8. Isn't flexible scheduling one of the first of many things, a union would address?
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:00 PM
Dec 2014

Isn't flexible scheduling one of the first of many things, a union would address?

jmowreader

(50,560 posts)
9. Possibly, but not all retail workers would unionize
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 05:20 PM
Dec 2014

Making a law that disallowed routinely running "flexible" schedules would be better. There are going to be times when it's not escapable - March and April in a garden center, when people are buying huge amounts of stuff for their yards, comes to mind quickly, as does Christmas - but most of the time, it's bullshit and is a way to keep your employees from getting ahead.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
12. It's more the freedom to scapegoat local owners/managers
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:16 PM
Dec 2014

That the board's looking at McDonald's itself is actually a pretty big deal, since major chains usually hide behind the fact that the franchises are nominally autonomous. When that holds up, people wanting to take them to task have to do so on an outlet-by-outlet basis, based on the argument that the local franchisee is the one owning and operating a site, not the corporate office.

So basically it's the freedom to allow the franchise owners to screw their employees - and to screw the franchise owners in turn by throwing them under the bus without consequence if someone calls them out. If things get too hot just writing off an outlet is an option, at which point the problem (and a few dozen peoples' ability to pay rent, mind, but head office won't care about that) goes away.

This is telling their head office, "No, you cannot deflect this back to the individual franchises, because we're holding your entire organization responsible for it."

That's actually a pretty significant stance for the NLRB to take, and it's terrific to see them doing so.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»McDonald's violated worke...