Wednesday, May 09, 2007


I find myself in a dilemma when it comes to the boycotting of Subway stores.

I am outraged at the treatment Ms Lang by the George Street Branch of Subway in Dunedin and I think that it is fantastic that people are defending her rights and boycotting THAT subway.

However, Subway is a franchise and "Subway" essentially have no control over employee/employer relations and therefore this means Ms Lang's termination. It would be the same scenario if someone was fired from a New World Store, on the same premises as Ms Lang, which is a franchise but overseen by Foodstuffs. It is on these grounds that I do not see why other Subways should be boycotted, it is not fair to lump all Subway Franchise Owners into the one basket and detract from their business, by all means never go to the George Street one again but I will not consciously be boycotting the Subways in Wellington. I am open to peoples thoughts though and with more information I could change my mind.

However in saying that I can not recall the last time I ate Subway, and it is not where I typically go to get an over priced sandwich, so it is unlikely I will be entering a Subway store anytime soon.


Maria von Trapp said...

um........because who best to pressure the subway owners but other subway owners.

If they start to lose business, they will apply pressure to stop this nonsense.

Structurally, legally, you're right, but your view fails to see the business relationships that occur with franchises and franchisees and the implications of these.

It is highly likely that this behaviour is symptomatic of a broader culture within subway that treats their employees with contempt.

Also, subway is a brand. Part of that brand is the employment brand. When you buy into a franchise you take on that brand, all parts of it, good and bad. That's business risk, so if other subway owners don't like it, tough shit. The franchise and the other owners should be taking some responsibility.

Clyde said...

Subway negotiates the Franchise Agreement with the Franchisee. Subway should be boycotted as they have not used their role as owner of the Franchise to see that all employees employed by their franchisees are treated properly and fairly.

Responsibility absolutely lies with Subway Corporate.

Heine said...

Pfffft. Not at all. The Dunedin branch should be subjected to the pressure, not worldwide or NZ branches.

This smacks of more anti capitalist nonsense than commonsense. MVT shows once again her lack of knowledge on how a business operates... sheesh.

James said...

Boycotting Subway just hurts other Subway workers...just as union wage demands not related to production put workers in other industries out of jobs...