npv708 wrote:B+DS, I have a few points I'd like to make directly for you, regarding the fast food industry and ACA.
1) Papa John's founder/CEO John Schnatter has been one of the most prominent voices against the ACA regarding the fast food industry, specifically pizza chains, but why haven't the other the top 2 Pizza Restaurants (by volume), Pizza Hut and Domino's, and the 4th place, Little Caesar's (owned by an NHL owner currently perceived as one greedy sob in the labor negotiations) have similar complaints? Is it purely coincidence that John Schnatter is trying to publicize something that most of the pizza restaurant industry isn't and hosted multiple campaign events for Romney at his mansion?
2) If ACA is as big as a problem as John Schnatter has made it out to be, then how is it possible that he will be opening 1,500 more stores worldwide, including 300 in North America. Doesn't it seem if profits are so endangered by the ACA, that growth wouldn't really be the best option? Same goes for Darden group, who plans to open another 500 restaurants over the next five years.
3) If the ACA is as evil as Papa John's, the Darden Group, McDonald's, Subway, and the NCCR claim, then why are they the only ones that seem to be leading the charge, when there are so many more restaurant chains in the industry?
1. How do you know they are not. Many franchises are worried and are on record as saying so. We don't need a petition signed by each single one. Maybe they aren't saying anything so they dont get blasted on national tv by hosts confused by the public viewers as knowledgable? Of course his connection to Romney might have lead to his making what amounted to a bad PR move. What are other company would come out now. Their concerns turn them into lepers.
2. Their concerns where clearly over having to raise costs and cut back on employee hours to keep up with a rising costs. I don't want to go down this road too many times getting into business decisions but there is a correlation between rising costs and new non exempt hours rules compared to corporate growth. Nobody exoects business to stop but everyone expects their businesses to be effected. You seem to focus on these issues that make sense to you as bull crap but have 100% valid busness reasoning.
Just because they are ticked that their costs are artificially rising and that they will have to alter the workforce as well as cut back on hours probably of their better employees does not mean they are going to sit back. They still have businesses to run.
Number 2 just seems so forced. And btw - franchise expansion is nothing near as comparable to a standard business expanded so it's not really valid anyways.
3. Pretty sure 3 is the same exact question as number 1. These seem like robotic responses by those who live outside the realm of Busienss and especially PR. My company hates the law but hasn't said anything. Who cares?