Employer legalities Question

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
The business is simply taking advantage of the current labor market for their benefit.




Shocking, isn't it. It sucks, but it's how the world works. The same thing happens repeatedly in manufacturing shops when shut downs are a common occurrence due to retooling and things like that.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: chiks
Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: chiks
What about the WARN act?
It requires workers to be told about plant closures 60 days in advance.


Maybe you should read a little closer.

Quote:
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs.


http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-warn.htm
Most restaurants do not have 100 or more employees.

Not to mention:
Quote:
Generally, WARN covers employers with 100 or more employees, not counting those who have worked less than six months in the last 12 months and those who work an average of less than 20 hours a week.


Restaurants tend to have a high turnover rate and also tend to hire many part time employees.


Yes. I should have read closer.
But I guess you should have also read the OP post closer.

This is a national restaurant chain, like Cracker Barrels.
I am sure they have more than 100 workers.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Again you are making huge assumptions and passing them off as facts.
Assuming it could be Cracker Barrel (the o/p didn't say - that is YOUR assumption) they undoubtedly have more than 100 employees working for the whole company, but not that one store. And that is how I have understood the WARN act - in this case it applies to the one restaurant not the whole company.

But let's say solely for the sake or argument they do have 100 people working at that store. As I stated most restaurants have many employees working part time - 20 hours or less. So they don't count as part of the 100. Also most ALL restaurants have a very high turnover rate. You may have a faithful few, but the large majority come and go quite often. SO anyone who hasn't worked there for at least 6 months isn't counted as part of the 100 either.
Again read the part I posted for your benefit! I hope I made that simple enough for you to understand.

Since you obviously missed it the first time:
"Generally, WARN covers employers with 100 or more employees, not counting those who have worked less than six months in the last 12 months and those who work an average of less than 20 hours a week."
Since I have owned/managed a number of restaurants over the last 5 decades I have a pretty good idea how the system works and I haven't seen very many restaurants with over 100 full time employees.

 

[javacontour]

Just because a store is part of a national chain doesn't mean the company owns it. It could be a franchise, meaning the company such as McDonalds does NOT own the store, and the total count of McDonalds corporate staff doesn't count. Only the number of employees by the holder of the franchise.

Just because there is some big name logo on the store doesn't mean the company owns that store.

 

[The_Jeff]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
It could be a franchise, meaning the company such as McDonalds does NOT own the store, and the total count of McDonalds corporate staff doesn't count.


Big +1!

One of the airlines just WARNed their employees of forthcoming layoffs. Many aren't even going to be laid off but they were WARNed just in case. This must do wonders for morale.

 

[SteveSRT8]

And people shouldn't think that companies are unaware of these laws. They have lawyers who advise them how to avoid the interference of regulations, etc.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And people shouldn't think that companies are unaware of these laws. They have lawyers who advise them how to avoid the interference of regulations, etc.


The lawyers also advise based on risk & real world consequences of getting caught beyond compliance.

 

[chiks]

Why is the old man in sc so belligerent? Can he not just express his viewpoints in a more civilized manner?

I can and very well be wrong. I knew if something and brought it to the attention of the OP.

 

[SteveSRT8]

I can't tell if the above is name calling or what. Just because someone nails it on the head and proves you wrong...?

Any way, all employers "use" the labor market to advance their interests. The valuable employees who create the income are usually valued by most successful companies and protected accordingly.

Unfortunately as things crumble the workers are often locked out. It's really more of a statement about current economic reality more than about the mistreatment of workers.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: chiks
Why is the old man in sc so belligerent? Can he not just express his viewpoints in a more civilized manner?

I can and very well be wrong. I knew if something and brought it to the attention of the OP.

Not "belligerent" at all. Just stating facts - and trying to educate you. To be honest - I sometimes get frustrated with people who post their opinion as fact and aren't willing to listen to those who do know what they are talking about. But my response to you is FAR from "belligerent."

But if it makes you feel better - HAVE A NICE DAY!

FWIW - I agree with others, this restaurant could very well be a franchise - but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic.

But I agree with Steve - the really good companies/owners take care of their employees. Sadly many "chain" type restaurants do not fall into this category. I'm not saying it is true of all of them. I have a close family member who works for a large chain fast food type business and they take very good care of their employees. Even so their turnover rate is still pretty high even though working conditions are very good and starting pay is well above minimum wage.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
But I agree with Steve - the really good companies/owners take care of their employees. Sadly many "chain" type restaurants do not fall into this category. I'm not saying it is true of all of them. I have a close family member who works for a large chain fast food type business and they take very good care of their employees. Even so their turnover rate is still pretty high even though working conditions are very good and starting pay is well above minimum wage.


The assumption is that the employer is sitting on boat loads of cash and is simply hoarding it to screw the employees. If the employer is doing a major remodel, then he is already laying out a lot of cash (probably a loan) to improve the facility in this depressed economy.

He may not have the cash on hand to pay multiple people for 2 weeks of no productivity. Do you pay your mechanic or doctor when you don't need them? Times are hard and many business are cash short.

The employees received 2 weeks of warning which is pretty generous considering the employer didn't have to give any at all.

 

[javacontour]

Franchise is relevant in the part of the discussion about the WARN act you were part of.

Just because it's a big chain doesn't mean a local store is company owned.

I was thinking the act might apply to company owned stores, but may not apply to a franchise since it's less likely a franchise holder would have more than 100 employees unless they had multiple stores.

That is why any discussion about a franchise is salient to the topic.

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: chiks
Why is the old man in sc so belligerent? Can he not just express his viewpoints in a more civilized manner?

I can and very well be wrong. I knew if something and brought it to the attention of the OP.

Not "belligerent" at all. Just stating facts - and trying to educate you. To be honest - I sometimes get frustrated with people who post their opinion as fact and aren't willing to listen to those who do know what they are talking about. But my response to you is FAR from "belligerent."

But if it makes you feel better - HAVE A NICE DAY!

FWIW - I agree with others, this restaurant could very well be a franchise - but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic.

But I agree with Steve - the really good companies/owners take care of their employees. Sadly many "chain" type restaurants do not fall into this category. I'm not saying it is true of all of them. I have a close family member who works for a large chain fast food type business and they take very good care of their employees. Even so their turnover rate is still pretty high even though working conditions are very good and starting pay is well above minimum wage.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Franchise is relevant in the part of the discussion about the WARN act you were part of.

Just because it's a big chain doesn't mean a local store is company owned.


I'm well aware of that but thank you for clarifying that.

Quote:
I was thinking the act might apply to company owned stores, but may not apply to a franchise since it's less likely a franchise holder would have more than 100 employees unless they had multiple stores.

That is why any discussion about a franchise is salient to the topic.



Well that's not the way it was explained to me by my attorney.

Another point is that a "franchise holder" may own more than one store or franchise. I would think that in your scenario this would also be "salient" to the discussion.
My understanding is it would apply only to one physical address. For example if I owned two IHOP restaurants in the same town and decide to close restaurant one for remodeling, restaurant two workers are not affected by the closure. My understanding and the whole point of this act - is to protect (or attempt to) the employees that are out of work for x amount of days. Not wanting to be argumentative here or "belligerent" LOL!

BTW - not going into all the details, but I have been told there are loopholes in this act that some less than scrupulous owners "could drive a Mack truck through." (Note I said I've been told - I don't know it for fact since I never had a real reason to research it.)

I've only closed a restaurant for remodeling once - and I gave all my employees the option of coming to work their normal shift and I would find work for them to do or they could take unpaid time off. We were only closed for a couple of days, but most took the time off and for the record I was well under the 100 employee limit.
The one other time was for one day - due to weather, which is usually called an "Act of God."

 

[javacontour]

No, I get it. That's why I used the weasel word, "MAY"

It may apply to a franchise holder, depending on what the law says, how many employees they have, etc. If the total employee count is what they consider, regardless of the number at any one location, then indeed, a franchisee may have to notify under the WARN law.

I also agree, it's good form to let your folks know and to try to take care of your employees.

On the other hand, it's good to know you relative position. In the 1990's, I could get a dozen IT offers in 10 minutes and go in and ask my boss for a raise.

Today, not so much.

It's not always the employer who holds a relative position of power. If you have the "right" skill, the employee may be in a position of power. As I've seen from managing people, it's not always employers who abuse power.

People are people, regardless if they own the business or are employed by the business. There will be good and bad examples of each.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: javacontour

People are people, regardless if they own the business or are employed by the business. There will be good and bad examples of each.


Boy isn't that the truth. The stories I'm sure we both could tell!

 

[chiks]

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: chiks
Why is the old man in sc so belligerent? Can he not just express his viewpoints in a more civilized manner?

I can and very well be wrong. I knew if something and brought it to the attention of the OP.

Not "belligerent" at all. Just stating facts - and trying to educate you. To be honest - I sometimes get frustrated with people who post their opinion as fact and aren't willing to listen to those who do know what they are talking about. But my response to you is FAR from "belligerent."

But if it makes you feel better - HAVE A NICE DAY!

FWIW - I agree with others, this restaurant could very well be a franchise - but I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic.

But I agree with Steve - the really good companies/owners take care of their employees. Sadly many "chain" type restaurants do not fall into this category. I'm not saying it is true of all of them. I have a close family member who works for a large chain fast food type business and they take very good care of their employees. Even so their turnover rate is still pretty high even though working conditions are very good and starting pay is well above minimum wage.


THANK YOU. I indeed have had a great day at work today.

No hard feelings old man. let us keep discussing.

 

[BrownBox88]

Originally Posted By: Mixologist
Originally Posted By: BrownBox88
I use to be a general manager for a well known national fast casual restaurant.


You were a 'general manager' and you don't know this?

Hmm..




Yes and legalities like this is something I don't know about that is why I asked.


To clarify to you people, UPPER management such as the regional and district managers knew about the remodel and closing two months prior, BUT they did not tell the GM/employees til two weeks before closing. The stores in the region are now corporate owned. The remodel was simply because the previous owner (franchisee) did the cheapest build out possible, corporate came behind and updated everything to their standards.

 

[BrownBox88]

Working for this "company" was an experience to be remembered. They don't spend anything at all for advertisement, at all. All their marketing money is put back into the company in the form of "secret shopper" programs. Get a good score, you get up to $1000 to split between 5-10 employees, twice a week. The "family" that started the company has a very strict ethics that they want everyone to follow. There's things that are hard to explain without first experiencing it. A good example is black mailing, garnishing your pay for something such as ordering one or two many soda BIBs (bag-in-box) because of a hiccup in ordering or inventory. We are human, we make mistakes. But they aren't the type of people to understand that.


Thank you guys for all the replies.

 

[Vikas]

See, I knew it :-( Management kept planned closing a secret from the workers.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: BrownBox88
There's things that are hard to explain without first experiencing it. A good example is black mailing, garnishing your pay for something such as ordering one or two many soda BIBs (bag-in-box) because of a hiccup in ordering or inventory. We are human, we make mistakes. But they aren't the type of people to understand that.


Thank you guys for all the replies.
Sounds like time to update your resume-I work in the restaurant business myself, and when ownership starts behaving weirdly (and ILLEGALLY) like that, they won't be around too long.

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: BrownBox88
Found out today from ex co-workers that no hourly people were able to get temporarily transferred to other stores for work. Is this legal? Is the company obligated to give compensation? They knew they were going to close the store two months ahead of time and didn't bother finding work for people. I would hate to be in this situation.



In California it is legal, or it was legal. You can file for unemployment because you are unemployed. You will most likely have to wait a week (be off work for a week) before receiving any benefits. I have had it happen many times at a union job.

If they lay you off, they have to pay you ALL the money they owe you and vacation time.