Chick-fil-a does donate a considerable amount to charity. But it's a lower amount than it would take to get their own workers out of poverty. That's the issue. It's like cutting down 5 trees, planting 2 back, and patting yourself on the back for fighting deforestation. That's what makes me throw my hands up and ask "Where did all that talk about teaching a man to fish and charity towards humanity go?" You can't take 65% of the profits from workers, dropping them below the poverty line, give a small portion of it back, and call yourself charitable. It's insulting to people who are actually concerned about the poor.
You keep citing that 65% as if they had the option of raising the workers salaries by 65%. They don't.
Here are the details:
Chick-fil-A model helps it lead [bless and do not curse]| ajc.com
Chick-fil-As 2010 profit margin, which was 5.1 percent of its systemwide sales, was somewhat behind the 6.4 percent profit margin of industry kingpin McDonalds Corp. last year. But industry experts say Chick-fil-A is beating most rivals in terms of sales and profits per store.
The profit was only 5.1% ... just good enough to keep the business healthy and growing. Lest you think that translates into a lot of money, just consider that the individual franchisees earn only modest profits (i.e., salaries) themselves.
Based on franchise disclosure documents and interviews with Chick-fil-A officials, the companys roughly 1,100 operators took home operating profits of about $210 million last year, or an average of $190,000 each. Some make substantially more.
That doesn't look exhorbitant to me, especially considering that the franchisees are actively working at the stores themselves ... doing the hard and dirty work they can't get employees to handle ... unlike some other franchise operations where the owner is simply a financier shuffling paper.
Here's what I think your real gripe might be ... if you're thinking for yourself, rather than reading some talking point.
Boiled down, Chick-fil-As system allows the privately held company to be extremely choosy about who runs its restaurants, and to reward them well if they succeed or get rid of them if they dont. Because it owns all its restaurants seemingly a contradiction in franchising Chick-fil-A can move quickly into new products and markets. It can shift strong-performing franchisees to bigger stores or give them more responsibility much like employees while firing up their entrepreneurial zeal.
I look at it as a great opportunity, said Margaret Phillips, who nearly 30 years ago scraped together $5,000 to take over her first Chick-fil-A store in Daytona Beach, Fla. Then 23, she was already a Chick-fil-A veteran, having started at 16 in a shop in North DeKalb Mall. They have shown us a lot of grace and love over the years, said Phillips, who now runs a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Commerce.
It seems that people at Chick-fil-A have figured out how to keep a large business privately controlled rather than controlled by Wall Street.
The company bankrolls the entire cost of its new restaurants and picks the locations. The only cost its so-called operator franchisees shoulder up front is $5,000, but they cant later sell the business or pass it on to their heirs. Chick-fil-A retains ownership of the restaurant, and takes a much bigger cut of each stores revenues and profits than at most franchises. It gets 15 percent of sales, collects rent on the property, and splits the remaining profit with the operator.
The formula seems to have worked well for both sides.
Considering some of your prior posts supporting OWS, I should think you would be applauding Chick-fil-A, Umaro. Did you know any of this about Chick-fil-A before?
