[Dilbert San Diego]

Doesn’t this have huge implications? Does this turn franchise business law on its head, apart from the issues dealing with employees?

The franchise model is based on each franchise being individually owned and operated.

If we’re saying that this is not the case anymore with employees, then does a franchise owner really own his/her business? Is he/she really a contractor of the corporate parent????

This decision has huge implications for other areas of business law.

And to think, we are truly into government by decree, government by bureaucratic decision, not government by laws passed by Congress or the states .

[jazusamo]

It would seem so to me and all due to a stacked Rat NLRB.

It’ll be fought out in the courts but like it mentioned, it’ll take years.

[Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi]

What this nonsense really boils down to, is nothing more than fascism, of which there are five aspects:

1. strong central government
2. government control of business
3. repression of expression
4. state exalted above individual
5. personality cult of the leader

As a corollary to 2) the owner is still permitted to own his business — at the sufferance of the state.

[Myrddin]

It is certainly a "taking" of private property. If allowed to stand, the franchise owners should be getting a refund from the parent corporation and any other adjustments appropriate to having their property forcefully appropriated to the parent corporation. That includes property improvement costs.

The parent corporation is likely to be shutting down low performing locations to cover the costs of a forced franchise buyback. The locations that remain should be converted to fully robotic service to reduce labor costs. The shutdown locations can be sold to recover the real estate value to fund the buybacks. There is no obligation to operate a business at a loss.