Hatred finds a battleground in a C-Store

When I read this piece last night, I was aghast!



I’m not sure what angered me most reading that article. The blatant racism? The fact that a company appears to be using an arm of the state for commercial gain? The exploitation of illegal residents/workers.

I don’t know how much similarity there is between the US and the UK but, here, an employer commits a crime if they knowingly employ someone who does not have legal status to work in the UK. That can be punished by an unlimited fone or five years in prison. It’s the responsibility of the employer to establish the right to work. My employer used to require all applicants being interviewed to bring evidence - whether that be the relevent documentation from the Home Office, in regard to folk who were not British nationals or, for Brits, some other documentation, such as a passport, that confirms their nationality.

The issue of immigrants, usually illegal ones, working crops up fairly regularly with “ethnic owned” food outlets. I’m sure that’s because minimum annual income requirements for visa and work permit encourage restaurant/takeaway owners to try and circumvent the system.


It is similar in the US. There is a checklist of specific documents that must be seen by the employer when a person is hired. That said, the employer really has no way to know if a document is counterfeit.

1 Like

Wow, I hadn’t read this story. I’m not going to really get into the issue - it is an insanely “hot button” issue here in the US right now and I need some spaces online to get away from it all.

I will just add to Meatn3’s post - often the documents aren’t counterfeit, they are legitimate documents, they just don’t always belong to the people who are presenting them. Essentially I could say “Hi, I’m John Doe and I want a job here are my documents (all under the name John Doe)” - but actually my name is John Smith. This results in all the applicable taxes/etc being taking out of their pay check, just like any other person working. But they never file a tax return, so never are able to claim any tax refund they may be eligible for at the years end (which many very low wage works do qualify for easily). So ultimately they are paying more taxes than documented workers.

This isn’t the only situation but not an uncommon one. - It is a complicated and more complex issue than most people appreciate . . . . .


I’m thinking that I probably should not have posted this piece here. I’m just overwhelmed by my perception of how heartless US commerce, and the Federal Government has become since I was a lad.


While the content is very disheartening on many levels I am glad you posted it. I would not have come across the article otherwise. If people aren’t aware of atrocities then it becomes easier for more to come.


That is a shocking article and I’m glad you posted it. Why are they treating their franchisees – who make them their money – so badly? Under the prior ownership and CEO the diversity and success stories were rightly celebrated. Leaving morality aside, their business tactics just don’t make sense to me.


The management philosophy seemed to change once the corporation was purchased by the Japanese company. Perhaps differing management styles don’t translate seamlessly from one nation/culture to the next?

From a US perspective I feel much of our countries strengths have developed because of our diversity. I really feel for those who became franchise owners when the 7-11 culture was welcoming and now find themselves enmeshed in a hostile environment with meager financial returns. The situation sounds like a very dark sci-fi view of the future.


I’m glad you posted it because this was a story I hadn’t heard. Aside from the other aspects of it I was shocked to discover that the new franchise agreement can give up to 59% of the gross profit to the parent company. And the guy in Chicago whose store was bringing in over a million dollars a year but was only making $37,000 a year before taxes after all the company’s fees were deducted. Jesus!


Yes. That was one of the statements that sent me around the bend.


The franchise business model is typically that the franchisor is the valuable trademark holder/licensor, very often the landlord, very often the store’s exclusive supplier, and can be the banker. The franchisee minimizes and secures the franchisor’s capital outlay with the franchise fee and ongoing rent that is likely a fixed amont plus a cut of sales. The franchisee’s profit is basically a modest hourly wage she can take or leave to a willing buyer. In short, the 7-11 or any other desirable brand comes at a steep risk-shifting cost that reflects bargaining power and price of opportunity that the brand/trademark creates. It would be the exception that demonstrates the rule if the store operator owned the land and building and could walk away from the franchise agreement and open up again as “Jane’s Market” to profit from the goodwill that his assiduous operation of the franchise created for the location.

1 Like