Graham declares ‘war’ against NY to protect Chick-fil-A’s Sundays off

[Tropical Wilds]

CFA has been in business for nearly 80 years, using the same principles. They rank around #2 or 3 in popularity. I think they'll be okay if they eventually leave the turnpike.

I’m sure they will, which is, again, why I’m not sure people are so upset.

Giving an employee a day off -not a "day off" when you get called in to work anyway (I worked in a steakhouse in my youth, that would routinely do just that), would be appreciated even by "heathens"

Which brings me to my next point as ChickFilA is closed on Sundays in that they don’t serve food on Sundays, however, employees are still scheduled to work there on Sunday’s to receive and process deliveries, deep clean, process payroll, do meetings and trainings, and maintain the building… The whole “so they can spend time with families” thing is just performative.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The group lost to attrition I’m referring to are the ones who see being closed on Sunday as a benefit that proves their “family values.” I’m not doubting their popularity, only their commitment to staying closed on Sundays for “religious reasons.”

Actually, the Sunday off rule is something that could remain pretty popular (for non-religious reasons) among one of their key demographics (Gen Z)

Chick-fil-A is Gen Z's favorite restaurant chain in the U.S.—see what else made their top 5

The survey consulted 14,500 teens across the country.

www.cnbc.com

....as polling would indicate that among Gen Z'ers, "work/life balance" is one of the things that's a highly prioritized aspect for them.

Having a place that allows part-time and/or "non white-collar" workers to have a guaranteed weekend day off certainly checks that box.

As the previous poster @RoBo1988 just mentioned, typically in the restaurant and retail spaces, there's no such thing as a guaranteed day off (even if you're not scheduled to work those days).

If you want to take a Sunday off, the onus is typically put on the employee to find someone to cover their shift.

And, even if you were scheduled to be off Sunday, and the establishment is still open that day and there's too many call-offs, your phone will be ringing saying "yeah, I know it's your day off...but..."

That's something a Chick-fil-a employee literally never has to worry about on a Sunday...so I can see why Gen Z'ers may get behind that aspect of their corporate culture.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Actually, the Sunday off rule is something that could remain pretty popular (for non-religious reasons) among one of their key demographics (Gen Z)

Chick-fil-A is Gen Z's favorite restaurant chain in the U.S.—see what else made their top 5

The survey consulted 14,500 teens across the country.

www.cnbc.com

....as polling would indicate that among Gen Z'ers, "work/life balance" is one of the things that's a highly prioritized aspect for them.

Having a place that allows part-time and/or "non white-collar" workers to have a guaranteed weekend day off certainly checks that box.

As the previous poster @RoBo1988 just mentioned, typically in the restaurant and retail spaces, there's no such thing as a guaranteed day off (even if you're not scheduled to work those days).

If you want to take a Sunday off, the onus is typically put on the employee to find someone to cover their shift.

And, even if you were scheduled to be off Sunday, and the establishment is still open that day and there's too many call-offs, your phone will be ringing saying "yeah, I know it's your day off...but..."

That's something a Chick-fil-a employee literally never has to worry about on a Sunday...so I can see why Gen Z'ers may get behind that aspect of their corporate culture.

I don’t need the restaurant or retail industry explained to me; I work in both and have for north of 25 years.

As I already stated, Chick-fil-A is closed Sundays but isn’t necessarily unstaffed for Sundays, making the whole “we are closed Sundays” debate moot as it’s largely performative. Search online and see the legions of Chick-fil-A employees saying “wait, they’re closed Sunday, why am I scheduled two mandatory Sundays a month?” They hold their trainings, meetings, deep cleanings, and receive shipments on Sundays. So saying that’s “literally” something they don’t have to worry about is false. They do have to worry about it.

In retail and the restaurant industry, you get days off. They may rotate, they may be different days each week, but the number of people who work 7 days a week every week are few and far between, so saying there are no “guaranteed days off” isn’t exactly true. And while I have no doubt that Gen z loves the idea of every Sunday off and a work/life balance, that’s from the employee perspective. From a consumer standpoint, they don’t. As anybody in retail can tell you, everybody is all about making sure they have a work/life balance until it limits their ability to access a good or service. The people banging on the windows of our bakery at 3pm cursing us out because we closed at 2 for Christmas Eve and we didn’t understand they needed something so why can’t they come in and how dare we leave them in a lurch don’t care about us getting home to families, they cared about getting what they want/need/demand. So just because the workers love it doesn’t mean they’ll love it as consumers.

As for calling people in on their days off, Gen Z has figured out that solution already… Just don’t answer your phone. You can’t get penalized for not answering your phone on a day off when you’re not on call, and that has held up legally. Getting called in isn’t the drama you make it out to be. If you’re off and you don’t want to work, you simply don’t answer.

 

[rjs330]

Sure, but all businesses have items in a contract that they find non-negotiable. All this law is defining is something the state believes is non-negotiable. And the reason for this is to ensure that restaurants are open in rest areas on the busiest travel days. It doesn't make any sense to negotiate with restaurants and allow them to close when demand is the highest. That is all NY is attempting to do with this law.



Sorry, the idea of "higher the cost of execution and less flexible" is not necessarily true, and is definitely true in this case. Of all the "major" fast food restaurants, Chick-Fil-A is the only one that I can think of that demands (or even requests) to close on a particularly day. In fact, with Chick-Fil-A demanding to close on some of the busiest travel days (since that is a non-negotiable item for them), it can be argued that it is actually costing money -- as they are closed on some days when the demand is the highest. Additionally, it is not being open on some of these busiest days that causes a loss of tangible benefits to customers -- the opposite of your claim.

But why create a law? Why not just change the contract in 33 years? Are the contracts stipulations all part of the law now? Is the entire contract incas d in law? Is the rent cost enshrined in the law?

I'm a bit suspicious over this. This is VERY specific and obviously aimed at one particular business. Why a law? A state law can actually supercede a private contract. Of course there will be a challenge in court over it, but if the law says it has to be a certain way it can nullify a civil contract.

So I'm very suspicious of this.

 

[rjs330]

personally don't care if Chick-fil-A takes Sunday off. I'm amused since Christians tend to go to restaurants, after church services. O

Why is this so amusing? There is no Biblical mandate to not go out to eat on Sundays. Why wouldn't they if restaurants are open. They just wouldn't go to Chick-fil-A. If a business doesn't want to be open on Sunday so what?

This comment seems to be a poke at Christians just like this law is a poke at a Christian run business who wants to give a day off to most of their employees. I would think you'd applaud a business like that.

 

[rjs330]

Had to que up a new outrage now that the War on Christmas is shelved until next year. Glad something came up before the new year.

Oh come on, every single thread on this forum is about "outrage" over something. Gee you act as if it's only certain people are ever only outraged about something.

This entire forum is about outrage if your post is an indicator of your definition of outrage.

 

[SimplyMe]

But why create a law? Why not just change the contract in 33 years? Are the contracts stipulations all part of the law now? Is the entire contract incas d in law? Is the rent cost enshrined in the law?

I'm a bit suspicious over this. This is VERY specific and obviously aimed at one particular business. Why a law? A state law can actually supercede a private contract. Of course there will be a challenge in court over it, but if the law says it has to be a certain way it can nullify a civil contract.

So I'm very suspicious of this.

Aren't you someone that has been critical of civil servants placing their own requirements on things? Forgive me if I'm wrong about that but I seem to recall you are one that has complained about government bureaucracy creating "rules and regulations." That is the reason that this is being proposed as a law -- it is the way a state defines what it wants requirements to be for the new contracts. I'm not quite sure how you would want a state to define what it requires of the contracts for rest areas, unless you are proposing it be left to unelected civil servants?

You can be suspicious all you want, it does not change that the government does have legitimate reasons for wanting the businesses contracting in rest areas, particularly ones serving and selling food, to be open on the busiest travel days. It doesn't matter if you suspect it is some type of "retribution," what matters is that the government does have the right to set the contract conditions for future contracts (they would have had more issues if they had attempted to grandfather the conditions). This is doubly true since the previous attempt, based on anti-gay bias, failed in the legislature and, if this is approved, it would show support for actually wanting rest center restaurants to be open 7 days a week, not just an anti-gay bias against a solitary company.

 

[rjs330]

Aren't you someone that has been critical of civil servants placing their own requirements on things? Forgive me if I'm wrong about that but I seem to recall you are one that has complained about government bureaucracy creating "rules and regulations." That is the reason that this is being proposed as a law -- it is the way a state defines what it wants requirements to be for the new contracts. I'm not quite sure how you would want a state to define what it requires of the contracts for rest areas, unless you are proposing it be left to unelected civil servants?

You can be suspicious all you want, it does not change that the government does have legitimate reasons for wanting the businesses contracting in rest areas, particularly ones serving and selling food, to be open on the busiest travel days. It doesn't matter if you suspect it is some type of "retribution," what matters is that the government does have the right to set the contract conditions for future contracts (they would have had more issues if they had attempted to grandfather the conditions). This is doubly true since the previous attempt, based on anti-gay bias, failed in the legislature and, if this is approved, it would show support for actually wanting rest center restaurants to be open 7 days a week, not just an anti-gay bias against a solitary company.

Yes I am critical about civil servants ruling things instead of legislators. Particularly when it has to do with making decisions on regulations and they are not answerable to the people.

I have problem though with civil contracts. Why are we mixing laws and civil contracts like this? Renew the contract in 30 years and put a new stipulation in it then. Why now? What does it change? When the contract runs out put in new language and Chick-fil-A can sign it or not. It's not that hard. Why go through the process now? There's something fishy about this. There's a fox in the hen house.

 

[Pommer]

Yes I am critical about civil servants ruling things instead of legislators. Particularly when it has to do with making decisions on regulations and they are not answerable to the people.

You’d like legislators to work out contracts for “vendors”?
Sure, there’s no room for graft there, huh?

I have problem though with civil contracts. Why are we mixing laws and civil contracts like this?

Because if legislators said “we’re going to let the State run the restaurants and rake in the dough for ourselves”, that’d be a nonstarter.

Renew the contract in 30 years and put a new stipulation in it then. Why now? What does it change? When the contract runs out put in new language and Chick-fil-A can sign it or not. It's not that hard. Why go through the process now? There's something fishy about this. There's a fox in the hen house.

By allowing Chick-fil-A to close on Sundays it would allow other vendors to maybe also decide to close on Sundays?
How are the users of the NY Thruways better served with no food options available on Sundays?

 

[rjs330]

You’d like legislators to work out contracts for “vendors”?
Sure, there’s no room for graft there, huh?




Because if legislators said “we’re going to let the State run the restaurants and rake in the dough for ourselves”, that’d be a nonstarter.

By allowing Chick-fil-A to close on Sundays it would allow other vendors to maybe also decide to close on Sundays?
How are the users of the NY Thruways better served with no food options available on Sundays?

I don't do a very good job of proof reading my posts. Never have. I meant to say I have NO problems with civil contracts such as this. A business can accept the terms or not. Legislators don't need to be involved in those. But apparently THIS legislator is. And by his comments we know he's after a particular vendor. Legislators specifically targeting a single company? I think anyone would agree that is wrong.

The Sunday closing hasn't been a problem so far. Other businesses have stayed open. It's probably more profitable for them with Chick-fil-A closed.

No food options? Are you kidding? There are towns and cities everywhere. Go to McDonalds in the next town for Pete's Sake or eat at one of the other places that are open. What we want to make a law that people have a right to a chicken sandwich? What kind of nonsense is this?

 

[Pommer]

I don't do a very good job of proof reading my posts. Never have. I meant to say I have NO problems with civil contracts such as this. A business can accept the terms or not. Legislators don't need to be involved in those. But apparently THIS legislator is. And by his comments we know he's after a particular vendor. Legislators specifically targeting a single company? I think anyone would agree that is wrong.

The Sunday closing hasn't been a problem so far. Other businesses have stayed open. It's probably more profitable for them with Chick-fil-A closed.

No food options? Are you kidding? There are towns and cities everywhere. Go to McDonalds in the next town for Pete's Sake or eat at one of the other places that are open. What we want to make a law that people have a right to a chicken sandwich? What kind of nonsense is this?

These are right on the toll-road that the motorists are drving upon, (with no need to get off of the toll road for a chicken sandwich unless it’s a Sunday).
The state gets to decide whose franchises are lucky enough to get one of the 33 year slots, this is a valid concern.

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't do a very good job of proof reading my posts. Never have. I meant to say I have NO problems with civil contracts such as this. A business can accept the terms or not. Legislators don't need to be involved in those. But apparently THIS legislator is. And by his comments we know he's after a particular vendor. Legislators specifically targeting a single company? I think anyone would agree that is wrong.

You asked why now -- I think because they are giving contracts to a restaurant that will be closed on Sunday. Because of this they feel the need to act now, so that it won't happen again when they do new contracts. We, as humans, have a tendency to procrastinate and forget; doing it now takes care of those issues.

The Sunday closing hasn't been a problem so far. Other businesses have stayed open. It's probably more profitable for them with Chick-fil-A closed.

No food options? Are you kidding? There are towns and cities everywhere. Go to McDonalds in the next town for Pete's Sake or eat at one of the other places that are open. What we want to make a law that people have a right to a chicken sandwich? What kind of nonsense is this?

That was my suggestion above; that a good argument can be made that not being able to rent from the state -- to get one of the locations at a rest area -- does not hurt Chick-Fil-A in any meaningful sense, assuming they still won't open on Sundays. Instead, they can build restaurants right at the Thruway exits and set whatever hours they want; those that want Chick-Fil-A can just hop off at the exit and quickly pick up some food.

 

[rjs330]

These are right on the toll-road that the motorists are drving upon, (with no need to get off of the toll road for a chicken sandwich unless it’s a Sunday).
The state gets to decide whose franchises are lucky enough to get one of the 33 year slots, this is a valid concern.

So? You still need a law to make sure people get a chicken sandwich? What a total waste of time. You can get one at McDonalds, Burger King, Arby's, Hardee's, Wendy's or almost any other fast food restaurant out there. This is just foolishness aimed at ONE restaurant. This is obviously personal.

Im actually surprised you are defending this.

 

[rjs330]

You asked why now -- I think because they are giving contracts to a restaurant that will be closed on Sunday. Because of this they feel the need to act now, so that it won't happen again when they do new contracts. We, as humans, have a tendency to procrastinate and forget; doing it now takes care of those issues.

You absolutely do not need a LAW for this. Change the contracts now. This law is fishy and aimed at ONE private business. It doesn't get any more ridiculous and quite frankly biased than that.

That was my suggestion above; that a good argument can be made that not being able to rent from the state -- to get one of the locations at a rest area -- does not hurt Chick-Fil-A in any meaningful sense, assuming they still won't open on Sundays. Instead, they can build restaurants right at the Thruway exits and set whatever hours they want; those that want Chick-Fil-A can just hop off at the exit and quickly pick up some food.

Just change the contracts now. If anyone want to lease any of the open slots the contract will say they have to be open Sundays. In 33 years Chick-fil-A will have to sign a new contract or close up shop on the roads. This law is complete nonsense and is targeting a single private business.

 

[SimplyMe]

You absolutely do not need a LAW for this. Change the contracts now. This law is fishy and aimed at ONE private business. It doesn't get any more ridiculous and quite frankly biased than that.


Just change the contracts now. If anyone want to lease any of the open slots the contract will say they have to be open Sundays. In 33 years Chick-fil-A will have to sign a new contract or close up shop on the roads. This law is complete nonsense and is targeting a single private business.

So who should change the contracts, some faceless bureaucrat that is just defining policy on his own? What authority is that bureaucrat doing it under? This is why it needs to be passed as a law, to show that it is a majority that favor this new "policy," and not just the few who tried to limit Chick-Fil-A based on their LGBT stances.

 

[Pommer]

So? You still need a law to make sure people get a chicken sandwich? What a total waste of time. You can get one at McDonalds, Burger King, Arby's, Hardee's, Wendy's or almost any other fast food restaurant out there. This is just foolishness aimed at ONE restaurant. This is obviously personal.

Im actually surprised you are defending this.

I’m defending the government having some power in their negotiations with private enterprise.
Nothing more.

 

[Estrid]

" America the land of the free" sure is overregulated.

 

[rjs330]

So who should change the contracts, some faceless bureaucrat that is just defining policy on his own? What authority is that bureaucrat doing it under? This is why it needs to be passed as a law, to show that it is a majority that favor this new "policy," and not just the few who tried to limit Chick-Fil-A based on their LGBT stances.

Those bureaucrats do that all the time. Do you actually think the legislators wrote the original contracts?

Government leases their lands out for all kinds of reasons. The legislature doesn't write all the contracts for those. And I don't think they should. But laws like this are targeted at one business which to me is highly unethical.

A law could be used then to nullify a contract as law supercedes civil contracts.

Right now the few bureaucrats can't to anything with Chick-fil-A contracts cause they've already been signed. Not for 33 years. With a law they could force them back to the table or force them to spend money on legal fees to fight the law.

No this is very bad.

 

[rjs330]

I’m defending the government having some power in their negotiations with private enterprise.
Nothing more.

Yes you are defending a LAW not a contractual change. The government will have power over the next contract negotiation in 33 years. They can change the contracts now for anyone wishing to newly open restaurants or those wishing to renew a contract that is expiring. In 33 years Chick-fil-A will have to renegotiate new terms. A law is NOT needed and can be used to force Chick-fil-A to the table now.

It's completely wrong.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So? You still need a law to make sure people get a chicken sandwich? What a total waste of time. You can get one at McDonalds, Burger King, Arby's, Hardee's, Wendy's or almost any other fast food restaurant out there. This is just foolishness aimed at ONE restaurant. This is obviously personal.

Im actually surprised you are defending this.

What are you talking about?

The rule is intended (at least on its surface) to ensure that people can get something to eat while driving on a limited access toll road that traverses mostly rural, sparsely-populated parts of the state. Contrary to popular belief, NY state isn’t all a bustling metropolis. It’s mostly dairy farms and corn fields. You can’t just stop at a McDonalds or a BK or whatever, because along large stretches of that road, there aren’t any.