McDonald's does not think it should have to comply with
a subpoena from the National Labor Relations Board in the court case over whether the fast food chain should be considered a joint employer of the workers in its franchisee-owned restaurants. The basic question is whether McDonald's exercises enough control over workers in the restaurants to be held responsible for violations of labor law. The NLRB's subpoena is for the emails of McDonald's executives who work with franchise owners ... kind of a good primary source for answering the question at hand. But:
In a filing in U.S. court in Manhattan on Monday, McDonald's said it had spent more than $1 million over the last few months producing over 160,000 pages of documents in response to the subpoena, even though the company says it will owe no more than about $50,000 if it is found liable for alleged labor violations at 29 franchises in five states.
While McDonald's is not facing a large payout to workers, the case is of critical importance to the fast food giant and other franchisors, since a finding of joint employment would force such companies to bargain with unions and could impact the very basis of the franchise model.
So, you know, "we shouldn't have to provide documentation on the central question in this case, because it's too expensive and not much money is at stake, anyway. But we're going to fight tooth and nail to avoid paying the money directly at stake because ... well, never mind what else might be at stake, this is all about $50,000 we object on principle to paying. Ignore the larger implications behind the mirror."
The control McDonald's exerts over workers technically employed by franchisees has at times extended to telling franchisees they were paying workers too much. But, you know, McDonald's is not the employer and should not be held responsible for how the workers are treated.
