Feds refusing to show cards in McDonald's case

WashTimes ^ | March 31, 2015 | 5:00 am | Sean Higgins

[justlurking]

a concept that runs counter to very understanding of what a franchise is: a legally separate entity that merely rents out the parent corporation's trademarks.

The relationship between a franchiser and franchisee is more like vendor and customer.

The franchisee pays a fee to the franchiser, based on gross sales. In return, the franchisee gets marketing, brand recognition, etc. McDonald's also provides supplies, but the franchisee pays them for it.

This is nothing but grasping at straws. The NRLB knows they have no precedent, but are hoping to find a friendly judge that is willing to twist the law to suit them.

Or, they are hoping that McDonalds will settle -- thus providing the precedent they need.

[Zhang Fei]

Or, they are hoping that McDonalds will settle -- thus providing the precedent they need.

They'd have to be nuts to settle - this threatens the lifeblood of the company. MCD is extremely franchise-heavy, and light on corporate-owned stores, which is why they're so profitable relative to their competitors. A settlement would open the door for more such encroachments. They need to put the NLRB in its place.

[Smokin' Joe]

Frivolous lawsuits won’t end until there is no one left in business to sue.

Will the last one out of work please turn off the lawyers?

[1010RD]

They’re going to lose big time. We’re watching a series of tantrums coming from the Chosen Ones.

[1010RD]

The GOP needs more outreach. This is a great story to tell and should be the lede on Fox.