Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#51

Post by flexie »

tempsy wrote: post #44
harrisonjackson wrote: post #30

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…

Uh 7-11’s name came from the fact it was open from 7am to 11pm originally, so being open 24 hr/day is not an inherent promise of the brand.

You are absolutely right (1) and I have no idea why people down vote you, even if they think its irrelevant.

We, here at our office desks, are quick to demand that this store or that service is open 24/7.

The guy needed a day off. Go somewhere else and get your chocolate bar.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#52

Post by rkachowski »

> Government figures show overwork was blamed for 246 claims related to hospitalization or death in 2018. The retail industry was one of the biggest sources, officials show. Another 568 workers took their own lives over job-related exhaustion.

I find it mind blowing, and pretty damning of the culture of shame in Japan that the number of work related suicides is more than double the amount of work related hospitalizations. How doesn't this get more attention?

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#53

Post by harrisonjackson »

tempsy wrote: post #44
harrisonjackson wrote: post #30

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…

Uh 7-11’s name came from the fact it was open from 7am to 11pm originally, so being open 24 hr/day is not an inherent promise of the brand.

> Because our customers have come to rely on our stores to meet their needs and their schedules, all 7‑Eleven stores operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, where allowed by law.

That is straight from the FAQ on their franchise site, so they do think it is part of the brand - despite the history of their name, which I'll admit I didn't know - and thank you for the TIL moment.

https://franchise.7-eleven.com/franchise/faq

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#54

Post by roel_v »

fzeroracer wrote: post #33
austhrow743 wrote: post #32

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?

Not to be snarky, but do you know what a 'franchise' is? I mean it seems from your comments in this thread that that would take away a lot of the confusion. This man is not an 'employee'.

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#55

Post by Moru »

carlmr wrote: post #42
ehnto wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reach outside of your bubble and realise there are likely tens of thousands of people in your city who live a different schedule to you, for work and other needs like care and support. There is room for a night time economy based around the people and services that run while you sleep in your standard schedule. Big cities wouldn't be possible without the efforts of people on AM heavy schedules.

Also not to forget, if there are people awake at night without outside pressure, then there's probably people fine with working at night. In Germany you can't work on Sundays. I always wanted to work on Sundays as a student, Fridays and Saturdays were worse, since that's the only days where most social gatherings happen. On the news I hear people saying they don't want to force people to work on Sundays. I'm thinking…

Germany is a very catholic heavy country, it's hard to do anything except church on sundays. Or fleamarkets on the now completely deserted shopping mall parking areas... Think an IKEA parking space completely empty on a sunday. They fill it up with flea markets instead :-)

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#56

Post by harrisonjackson »

flexie wrote: post #51
tempsy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh 7-11’s name came from the fact it was open from 7am to 11pm originally, so being open 24 hr/day is not an inherent promise of the brand.

You are absolutely right (1) and I have no idea why people down vote you, even if they think its irrelevant. We, here at our office desks, are quick to demand that this store or that service is open 24/7. The guy needed a day off. Go somewhere else and get your chocolate bar. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven

Yes, as a customer I like the same experience when I go from one chain to another - that's the value of their brand.

If he wants a day off then he should take a day off - I don't think 7-11 is setting his working hours or vacation days, but they do expect him to manage his store the way he's agreed to.

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#57

Post by maccard »

retsibsi wrote: post #46
p1necone wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really the same thing, but I used to work for a small food business that sold bottled/canned drinks from a fridge via a contract with Frucor (New Zealand), and the prices they charged wholesale to this small business were often higher than what you could buy the drinks for retail at nearby supermarkets.

Would it have been illegal to buy and resell stock from the supermarkets?

No, but it's usually against the agreement you have with the supplier, which will, like this story, probably end with a terminated agreement.

Depending on your local laws, the nearby supermarket might have been selling below cost, so it might not be as huge a pricing discrepancy as you imagine.

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#58

Post by michaelt »

austhrow743 wrote: post #36
fzeroracer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>The entire point was that as a small franchise owner he has to work 24/7 on the clock every day of the week 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 al…

> He is allowed to have and has employees.

An article that was posted to HN last year [1] profiled several convenience store franchise holders who, it sounded like, weren't making enough money to afford employees.

After all, if your country has 1.5 jobs per job seeker, raising wages; and you're only making $20 an hour of sales on the overnight shift, you're going to be losing money on that shift.

Of course, you might argue that a business that marginal should just close down - but if you spent $$$$ setting up, stocking and advertising the store, which might have seemed a good investment before another store opened nearby cutting into your sales, the decision to close down might not be an easy one.

It also says that 7-11 has an "area-dominant strategy" where, essentially, having a high density of franchise stores is their business strategy. That's in contrast to many franchises that include an area of exclusive territory, so there's one successful franchise rather than two struggling ones.

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/27/national/behind...

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#59

Post by Markoff »

I don't get it, if he doesn't like 7-eleven franchise conditions, why he just doesn't open regular non-franchise convenience store? it's not like they have monopoly, article claims they have 40% of market, so he would join majority of other convenience store owners

Re: 7-Eleven Struck Back Against an Owner Who Took a Day Off

#60

Post by Markoff »

fzeroracer wrote: post #33
austhrow743 wrote: post #32

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?

nobody stops him to hire employees, if it's not worthy financially then just give up such business
Post reply on HN