Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Zhang Fei
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.

21 posted on 03/31/2015 8:10:18 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: justlurking
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.

22 posted on 03/31/2015 8:18:30 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson