USA Today
NY Times
In 2012, 20 McDonald's workers filed a case against the National Labor Relations Board for being fired or punished for trying to unionize and demand higher wages. the workers were seeking a ruling in which McDonald's would be considered a "joint employer" with its franchises. this would make it easier for McDonald's workers to unionize and make McDonald's liable for labor violations they commit. However, the ruling was made so that McDonald's would only have to pay a cash settlement to the affected workers.
Had this case been settled under the Obama administration, a settlement would probably have been reached that favored the workers and would make McDonald's less profitable. since the case was stretched out and determined under the new general counsel appointed by trump, many criticize McDonald's for prolonging reaching settlement until proceedings could be held under a more sympathetic Republican-appointed counsel. Consequently, many view the decision as unfair and criticize the Trump administration for siding with the company despite what had been litigated under the Obama administration.
Do you think this ruling is fair? Should partisanship be affecting a case that was previously going to be settled under different terms?
12 comments:
This is a weird case here, because it overlooks the law. Under the Nation Labors Relations Act, it clearly states that you cannot fire an employer for trying to unionize. For this case to go in favor of McDonalds, there must of been hazy evidence and not that great of a case. To get only a payment after one fires another for unionizing, is to break the law still, unless it is changed. This is where I'm confused about the outcome of the case.
First of all, I do not think those McDonald employees should have been fired for requesting higher wages from their job. Employees should be able to request and ask their managers/bosses if they can get paid more. The new ruling that would make McDonald's pay a cash settlement to the affected workers is sort of strange as it wouldn't be as detrimental, and McDonald's should be instead liable for the labor violations they commit. I do not think the ruling is fair, but at the same time, the case was closed under the Trump administration and not the Obama administration so the outcome is somewhat justified.
Although it wasn’t stated specifically how the workers were acting against their employers, it is bad management policy and unfair for those 20 workers who got fired for trying to voice their opinions and unionize. Knowing that Mcdonald’s basically doesn’t directly employ the workers, of course workers would wish or even protest for more liability. Furthermore, even though I don't think that partisanship should be affecting a case previously supposed to be settled under different terms, that is the law and not something the public can argue against.
I agree that it is unfair that McDonald’s wasn’t really held accountable for the violations of labor laws by its franchisees when workers were fired for trying to unionize. Big businesses like McDonald’s should have some liability, even though the labor violations were technically committed by its franchisees. However, while it may be unfair that partisanship possibly affected the results of this case, I think that there isn’t any way to prevent partisanship from continuing to influence cases like this one. Whether people like it or not, the political party in power often exerts some influence over important cases, so there isn’t much that can be done to prevent partisanship from playing a role in certain cases.
This ruling is absolutely unfair; a corporation shouldn't have the power to prolong a case until they can sway the ruling in their favor. The ruling should have been made when the case first began. Then again, if the ruling was made under the Obama administration, Republicans wouldn't have been happy. Some might argue that it would've been unfair in any situation/under any presidency, as any type of ruling will have a bias and leave people unhappy. I don't think we can take partisanship out of this equation, even if the ruling had been made earlier.
I agree with people above that it is not fair that these workers are being fired and/or punished for asking for a higher wage. They were voicing their opinion. Although there is no detail on how the workers acted and how they asked, I don’t think the employers should’ve acted this way. McDonald’s should be accountable for their actions, but under Trump, I feel like they will get away with it. This has been prolonged for too long, at this rate, nothing will happen/change.
I personally believe that people are more important than corporations (which I guess I a pretty leftist view?), so I think this is kind of disgusting. Partisanship, in my opinion, should not be a part of these rulings. It is frustrating because our country is so divided and it's pretty much impossible to ignore that, so anything can be sucked into it. And I definitely don't see any reason why Trump would favor the people over corporation; he's a businessman, and it's pretty obvious he doesn't hold much respect for people in general...
Workers deserve to stand up for their rights if they are being treated unfairly. The workers definitely didn't deserve to be fired for doing so. I agree with Olivia that the people are more important than the corporation. Many of the workers wanted a higher wage to help take care of themselves and their families, and the fact that the workers were fired or had their hours reduced just for trying to unionize is awful. I also believe that no matter what, there was no way to prevent partisanship from impacting this case, at least at this point in time.
This is very frustrating to hear. America is known for free speech and the fact that employees were fired for simply speaking out literally goes against the Constitution. I don't think partisanship should be allowed in these types of rulings especially because with the ruling, it is going against people's rights. And this also means the case was dragged out over a long period of time, causing high amounts of stress to the workers who were trying to speak out.
McDonald's artificially lengthening the case honestly makes me think of the Speedy Trial Clause (Amendment VI). Although that clause only applies to criminal trials, the general principles behind it still stand--even in civil cases, people shouldn't be forced to wait in legal limbo for a ruling that might economically cripple them. With this in mind, partisanship should absolutely not have affected the ruling in this case. Labor rights should be consistent, irrespective of party-in-power, and workers' rights changing based on the ideological composition of an agency resembles something out of the Gilded age.
This is a big callback to the Gilded Age Era, during which attempts to unionize and gain better working conditions and wages was usually met with corporate victory. Though it does seem that the battleground has shifted from physically hurting workers/strikers, as was done during the Pullman Strike and Homestead strike, crippling them economically in court. As Franklin said, the trial lasted for unreasonably long (though I suspect that this was because McDonald was unsure about its chances of getting the verdict it wanted under the Obama Administration) which has the potential to cripple the workers. This, of course, costs corporate only a small percentage of their fortune.
This is extremely frustrating as we see the rights of workers being infringed on. The McDonald's corporation purposefully pushed the trial back so that they would have a much greater chance with the administration. This is essentially cheating the system all so that they can keep treating their workers like trash. Workers rights are a huge, under-looked problem in the US right now, mostly due to the degree of the others. The quality of living on a minimum wage job is only declining as big corporations only get bigger and bigger. And this is only another win for the corporations. Worker's should have the right to unionize as it will help them tremendously with negotiating with the people that would rather see the money go to them then to you. It's sad to know that we live in such a material world that corporations would extend cases, simply just to prevent workers from living a better life.
Post a Comment