Here's an example of how the system protects business and shafts workers. Trumps trade wars will raise prices on many consumer items. If you think Trump's policies are good for working and middle class workers, you are suffering from a delusion. Read the economic news!
Seven major restaurant chains, including Arby’s, Carl’s
Jr., McDonald’s and Jimmy John’s, agreed to drop a hiring practice that critics
say may be keeping tens of thousands of
fast-food workers locked in low-wage jobs.
Under agreements with Washington State announced on
Thursday, the companies pledged to remove so-called no-poach clauses from their
contracts with franchisees. Auntie Anne’s, Buffalo Wild Wings and Cinnabon also
agreed to drop the clauses.
The
provisions prohibit workers at, for example, one Carl’s Jr. franchise from
going to another Carl’s Jr. They do not stop those workers from taking jobs at
restaurants run by a different chain.
No-poach
clauses have drawn scrutiny over whether they hold down pay for restaurant
employees — one of the largest segments of the United States work force — and
also contribute to a broader wage stagnation that continues to plague the
economy long after the end of the recession.
Many
types of franchise businesses impose the clauses, but they may be most
prevalent in the restaurant industry. The fast-food sector, in particular,
relies overwhelmingly on independently owned and operated franchise stores.
One such worker is Maria Sanchez, who worked part time at
a McDonald’s in Grimes, Iowa, this year. She needed more hours than she was
being scheduled for, so she found a job at a nearby McDonald’s that offered
more shifts.
She said she had made it as far as orientation when a
manager told her the store had learned that it could not hire her.
“I cried all the way until I got home,” Ms. Sanchez, who
is originally from Mexico, said through a translator provided by the advocacy
group Fight for 15. “I can’t survive with 25 hours a week.”
Ms. Sanchez, 50, said she eventually got a job at a
different McDonald’s.
“I never told them that I worked for another McDonald’s,”
she said, adding that she recently left the new job after hurting her back. “I
was scared to mention that I was working in another McDonald’s, because I need
my job.”
Unlike
noncompete clauses, which job-seekers can review before signing hiring
documents, no-poach provisions are buried in contracts between restaurant chains
and franchisees, which independently own and operate the majority of stores.
Workers at these stores may not even know they are bound by the restrictions
until they try to land new jobs. . . .
After examining the franchise deals of 40 of the
country’s largest chains, Professor Krueger and Professor Ashenfelter concluded
that no-poach restrictions appeared to exist mainly to limit competition and
turnover, possibly depressing wages in the process."
Seven major restaurant chains, including Arby’s, Carl’s
Jr., McDonald’s and Jimmy John’s, agreed to drop a hiring practice that critics
say may be keeping tens of thousands of
fast-food workers locked in low-wage jobs.
Under agreements with Washington State announced on
Thursday, the companies pledged to remove so-called no-poach clauses from their
contracts with franchisees. Auntie Anne’s, Buffalo Wild Wings and Cinnabon also
agreed to drop the clauses.
The
provisions prohibit workers at, for example, one Carl’s Jr. franchise from
going to another Carl’s Jr. They do not stop those workers from taking jobs at
restaurants run by a different chain.
No-poach
clauses have drawn scrutiny over whether they hold down pay for restaurant
employees — one of the largest segments of the United States work force — and
also contribute to a broader wage stagnation that continues to plague the
economy long after the end of the recession.
Many
types of franchise businesses impose the clauses, but they may be most
prevalent in the restaurant industry. The fast-food sector, in particular,
relies overwhelmingly on independently owned and operated franchise stores.
One such worker is Maria Sanchez, who worked part time at
a McDonald’s in Grimes, Iowa, this year. She needed more hours than she was
being scheduled for, so she found a job at a nearby McDonald’s that offered
more shifts.
She said she had made it as far as orientation when a
manager told her the store had learned that it could not hire her.
“I cried all the way until I got home,” Ms. Sanchez, who
is originally from Mexico, said through a translator provided by the advocacy
group Fight for 15. “I can’t survive with 25 hours a week.”
Ms. Sanchez, 50, said she eventually got a job at a
different McDonald’s.
“I never told them that I worked for another McDonald’s,”
she said, adding that she recently left the new job after hurting her back. “I
was scared to mention that I was working in another McDonald’s, because I need
my job.”
Unlike
noncompete clauses, which job-seekers can review before signing hiring
documents, no-poach provisions are buried in contracts between restaurant chains
and franchisees, which independently own and operate the majority of stores.
Workers at these stores may not even know they are bound by the restrictions
until they try to land new jobs. . . .
After examining the franchise deals of 40 of the
country’s largest chains, Professor Krueger and Professor Ashenfelter concluded
that no-poach restrictions appeared to exist mainly to limit competition and
turnover, possibly depressing wages in the process."
