31–40 of 72 posts
This would be fine if he was running a store without the 7-11 name/brand. As a business owner, I do empathize with him. He wants to be his own boss and make his own hours, but he still needs to keep his commitment or he needs to dissolve it the right way. As a customer - this would be piss me off so much. There is a 24 hour fitness that I used to go to that closed at 10 pm. HOW IS THAT OKAY?? (this was years ago and…
They care that he closed the store not that he took the day off.
"Man loses franchising rights after violating core aspect of the franchise brand" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.
Shame on the New York Times for such a bs title. They care that he closed the store not that he took the day off. "Man loses franchising rights after violating core aspect of the franchise brand" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.
The entire point was that as a small franchise owner he has to work 24/7 on the clock every day of the week due to the company off-loading all of the risk and issues onto the owner. You don't see a problem with a company mandating that their employees work every single hour of every single day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the opposite. I like knowing that at 3am there's somewhere that's open where I can buy things like contact lens fluid, pain relievers, etc. (7-Eleven happens to have those)
Perhaps just plan ahead for your contact lens solution. I get that it's convenient, but working those shifts is miserable (I did it).
Not earning is worse.
The other side of a culture of extreme duty is a culture of extreme shame. Its not the way for humans to live. We haven't yet seen the end of its self propagation.
Shame on the New York Times for such a bs title. They care that he closed the store not that he took the day off. "Man loses franchising rights after violating core aspect of the franchise brand" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.
Shame on you for not reading the article. The entire point was that as a small franchise owner he has to work 24/7 on the clock every day of the week due to the company off-loading all of the risk and issues onto the owner. You don't see a problem with a company mandating that their employees work every single hour of every single day?
That's not the entire point of being a small franchise owner at all. He is allowed to have and has employees. He is supposed to run a schedule of them to keep the business staffed around the clock. That doesn't mean he has to personally be there for every single hour that it's open! How absurd.
>off-loading all of the risk and issues onto the owner.
There is no offloading of all risk and issues to the business owner. All risk and issues are already inherently the owners. That's what it means to be a business owner. It's how they earn their share of the venture. If things work out you can earn a lot more money than as an employee. If things don't then you crash and burn. That's what you signed up for when you created or bought a business.
>You don't see a problem with a company mandating that their employees work every single hour of every single day?
Sure I do. That's in no way what happened here though. He isn't the employee of 7 Eleven. He is a business owner who has leased their brand in exchange for agreeing to certain terms. He gets more customers because people trust that his business, as a 7 Eleven, will be open all of the time and in exchange he has to be open all of the time. And again, they don't want him personally there 24/7. Just his business open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I know that, I'm not claiming 7-Eleven is an MLM. I said it's like an MLM in this one way : many of them require that you buy a huge chunk of inventory up front whether or not you sell it, which is one of many abusive tactics of current American MLMs. (So is the actual multi-level bit.) See e.g. question 7 about "inventory loading" at https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus... Mostly, this g…
It's a franchise. It's a very common model and while you may not like it, it is not a scam.
Shame on the New York Times for such a bs title. They care that he closed the store not that he took the day off. "Man loses franchising rights after violating core aspect of the franchise brand" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.
Shame on you for not reading the article. The entire point was that as a small franchise owner he has to work 24/7 on the clock every day of the week due to the company off-loading all of the risk and issues onto the owner. You don't see a problem with a company mandating that their employees work every single hour of every single day?
That's their whole shtick. If the owner didn't like it he could have opened a normal grocery store. No one forced him to go to 7-11.
Shame on the New York Times for such a bs title. They care that he closed the store not that he took the day off. "Man loses franchising rights after violating core aspect of the franchise brand" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.
In a world where billions of things happen every day, how does a garden-variety franchisee contract dispute in Japan become an article in the New York Times?
Shame on the New York Times for such a bs title. They care that he closed the store not that he took the day off. "Man loses franchising rights after violating core aspect of the franchise brand" doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.
What’s really odd is that this is an article at all. In a world where billions of things happen every day, how does a garden-variety franchisee contract dispute in Japan become an article in the New York Times?