Comments on: California high court rejects franchisor-as-joint-employer liability

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:12:45 +0000

Allan, Allan, Allan. You make the court’s point in your argument, an Own Goal. It’s probably true that employees and customers can’t tell the difference. And the court said that benefits both parties to the contract. And by the way, these franchise systems are enforced with almost the same rigor as trademark law. The franchisor has control over the system.
But beyond minimum staffing levels, they don’t have control over terms of hiring and employment. There’s no franchise system for that. Hey look, a business opportunity – labor contractor to the fast food industry. I bet it would work better than unions.

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:44:54 +0000

In like wise, everything in the State of California is subject to the rulings of the State of California, so the State must be held responsible for every tortious action within its bounds, or, indeed, wherever the effects of its laws causes repercussions.

Bob

By: Allan

Allan — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:36:00 +0000

This is wrong. Dominos is Dominos. FedEx is FedEx. McDonalds is McDonalds. While these distinctions may make sense as a franchiser/franchisee, they make no sense at all to employees or consumers.

This is simply a way to shield large corporations from pesky lawsuits. People with meritorious claims win, and then they get nothing because the franchisees can simply declare bankruptcy.