ST Alpha - "So the loophole here is that any individual store in the chain has less than 500 employees. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 165

In response to "Interesting turnabout for Shake Shack -- (link)" by Beryllium

So the loophole here is that any individual store in the chain has less than 500 employees. -- nm

Posted by Qale (aka Qale) Apr 20 '20, 04:50

(No message)

Responses:

Correct. If you’re in food service as long as each location has less than 500 employees they’re all treated as separate employers. -- nm - spamlet Apr 20, 05:01 4
- ^^^^^ This. Since many locations operate independently. Many franchised fast food places will be treated as such -- nm - budice Apr 20, 05:14 3
  - You don’t have to be franchised. I don’t believe SS franchises and neither does Ruth’s Chris. -- (edited) - spamlet Apr 20, 05:20 2
    - I'm not even 100% convinced franchises should have been allowed to qualify, maybe they should be the responsibility of their "parent" companies instead. -- nm* - znufrii, stimulated Apr 20, 06:16
    - Such crap -- nm - Krusty Apr 20, 05:58
Maybe all technically owned by franchisees? -- nm - mafic Apr 20, 04:58 1
- Yeah, I could see the franchisee thing being a legit need... Unless! That franchise owner owns enough of the chain to go over 500 themselves. -- nm - Qale Apr 20, 05:08

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.