>

There's a drastic difference between Franchise and Franchisee.
I worked for a large coffee chain and there was an issue with employee pay all around. During a district meeting the manager sat there with a calculator totalling up the free coffee we get and how much our pay "actually" was. Needless to say I don't work there still. >

My employer does the same thing. They give you a paper with the cost of your benefits (insurance, meals, etc) and call it "total compensation". At least the paper specifically mentions how much of that is base wage, bonus, and benefits. >

They shouldn't even be allowed to call health insurance a "benefit" anymore. All it does is imply that they gave it to you and you aren't paying for it yourself with premiums. btw, my premiums are REALLY up there. >

In all but the smallest businesses your contribution to insurance is generally no more than 50%. If you’re paying $700 a month, they are too, and likely more than that. For a person with dependents on their plan this can be multiple thousands a month. 
The problem isn’t employers passing it off as compensation. The problem is employers footing $3,000 a month for you, your spouse, and a kid to have health insurance the government should be providing to begin with. >

Yep - employers being the gatekeepers/providers of healthcare was an anomaly to begin with and not one we need.  Time to move to tax-funded healthcare for all like the rest of the developed world already has. >

*like the elderly in the US already have. For some reason we continue to believe that only people who have had five decades or more to accumulate wealth are worthy of socialized medicine. >

There are also a lot of dirt poor elderly that need and use it >

What you said. Medicare and Social Security are designed to disproportionally help impoverished elderly without being a formal transfer of wealth tp that group. Both are transfer of wealth.
Including those above the poverty line improves political resiliency, even if the numbers are worked to effectively still be an elder pension and healthcare hand out. >

Do the volunteer workers get $$ from the fines? >

Talked to a relative who works for the US DOL.  She said it sounds like the $6,685 was for back wages directly owed to the "volunteers".  The liquidated damages that allow the DOL to fine employers under the FLSA are usually a lot higher. >

I hope the workers get it
Thanks >

I assume the fines are in addition to the unpaid hours worked. it's only a small franchise owner getting fined, not the Chick-fil-A corporate. >

That's what the article says. >

6K fine, that'll teach him..... >

It's not even a fine it's pretty much just them having to pay back what was owed.  
So basically there was no punishment.
But why would there be?  We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Who pays wins. >

What are you talking about? This is a fine on the franchise owner from the labor department. That's a punishment prescribed by law for a violation of the labor code. >

They are saying if you steal $1,000, then the police tell you to pay back $1,000 and nothing else, you aren't being punished. >

They also have to pay back the worker wages in legal tender. Please read articles before commenting. >

It says nowhere in the article how much of the $6000 fine was directly for labor costs, but assuming they had 4 or fewer of these positions running these 5 hour shifts for a month, the wages would be in the $5000 range if they only worked 25 hours per week. Odds are high that the entire fine is the cost of wages. 
Considering the average franchise grosses 5.3m per year and they pay the franchise "owner" over 200k per year... They're not seeing anything resembling a penalty for this other than the loss of $1.25 for each meal ticket they gave out this way... 
Now to the actual substance of what you're replying to... the point the guy before you was making was that a fine of $6000 for a crime of not paying for labor valued at around $6000 is not a punishment. It's doing what you're supposed to because you got caught... This only reinforces that what he did was the correct thing to do in that area, because if you get caught you pay what they were owed and if you don't, you save money. Any amount of savings this way is an improvement, so this kinda ruling is a dog whistle to come exploit the people of this town, but don't be dumb enough to post it online or be public about it. >

To offset that "1.25 per meal voucher" is the savings on not paying the taxes or onboarding costs of hiring those workers part time. Having to pay back the wages without taxes or fees is a huge boon, likely. >

Oh yeah. And this is glossing over the fact that labor is worth more than you're paid for it anyways or they wouldn't pay you that much, so savings on labor related costs likely saves more than the food cost related to those vouchers. But let's not get too technical about it... I just wanted to paint the broad strokes of the situation >

Greed is not even being hidden these days.  In a time of instant communications.
Dystopian AF. >

And wanna know the biggest joke of that story?

The DOL has fined the franchisee $6,685 following an investigation that found certain employees were asked to direct traffic, then paid with meal vouchers instead of the minimum wage as legally required, the federal agency said on Monday.

That amount of fine for a Franchise that had a  Revenue of $5.8 billion in 2021, is just ridiculous.
E: To Adress the comment below, I was obviously referring that Chick-fil-A itself deserved a much higher fine and not just the franchisee.