The article titled "Judge Rejects Settlement Over McDonald's Labor Practices" is the most recent article on the McDonald's case which has been in trial since 2015. It all started in 2012 when McDonald's workers began protesting for higher wages and claiming they were threatened with termination and retaliation from management. Workers, including labor groups, filed a report with the NLRB, arguing that McDonald's was a co-employer and should be held liable for the franchises. If McDonald's were a co-employer, it would technically control working conditions and be held liable for all labor law violations committed by franchisees. Bargaining with union workers would also be necessary. This law has been modified slightly in recent years, and most recently in December it was determined that a company must have "direct and immediate control over workers" to be a co-employer. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The whole concept has become interesting to me, as the law changed so recently will likely have a huge impact on the outcome of this trial. The article focused on how Judge Esposito rejected the deal that brought McDonald's back. It included the return of a portion of the workers' wages and a detailed notice of the agreement and their union rights. Micah Wissinger, an attorney for the SEIU and affiliated groups, said: “The way this is structured, all the responsibility is on the franchisees, there is no obligation on the part of McDonald's. Part of the reason he rejected it is that they have no real obligation to do anything. The judge said that wasn't reasonable and hinted that the company delayed the trial as long as possible in hopes of getting a more Republican attorney general. I was intrigued by how much a policy of this type can influence important decisions in the world of employment relationships. After reading this article and doing some research on the last few years of this trial, I can now see the seriousness of this case and the implications it could have on McDonald's. If McDonald's were determined to be a joint employer, then it would be responsible for how its employees in more than 13,000 stores would be paid and treated. This would also mean that employees would have the ability to unionize and negotiate with the company. My first thought about it was how huge and how many people there could be in that union. If that happened, they could have a lot of bargaining power, which could mean higher wages almost indefinitely. McDonald's could find itself paying much higher wages and facing all the lawsuits that come with franchising. My opinion on this case is that I agree with Judge Esposito's ruling. I don't think it's fair that the deal that McDonald's came back with essentially holds franchisees accountable for management's actions, and McDonald's itself would not be at fault. I also believe that workers should be able to protest and negotiate for higher wages without facing retaliation. I understand that McDonald's doesn't want this to happen, since a union of these workers would have a lot of purchasing power, but I just think it's fair because they don't believe they are getting fair wages for their work. Regardless, I think McDonald's should be considered a co-employer and held at least partially responsible for that.