{"id":21691,"date":"2019-07-10T07:34:39","date_gmt":"2019-07-10T11:34:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=21691"},"modified":"2019-07-10T07:34:40","modified_gmt":"2019-07-10T11:34:40","slug":"dunkin-bad-for-americas-waistlines-but-good-for-americas-workers-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/07\/10\/dunkin-bad-for-americas-waistlines-but-good-for-americas-workers-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Dunkin\u2019: Bad for America\u2019s Waistlines, But Good for America\u2019s Workers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Bank of America recently announced plans<\/a> to sever its existing relationship with any company providing services to migrant detention centers, while American Airlines asked that their planes<\/a> not be used to transport migrants. In an age of \u201ccorporate social responsibility,\u201d these businesses have bowed to ginned-up pressure special interest-driven boycotts and Twitter campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, a few companies are making decisions based on the American people\u2019s interests, rather than in response to a small segment of vocal critics. After an orchestrated walkout by some employees who opposed the company providing beds to migrant detention facilities, furniture retailer Wayfair<\/a> circulated a letter<\/a> to employees affirming its commitment to \u201csell to any customer who is acting within the laws of the countries within which we operate,\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wayfair did make a symbolic gesture to disgruntled employees with a $100,000 donation to the Red Cross<\/a>, but not to the pro-amnesty lobbying group the blackmailers had wanted.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, one business meriting real distinction is the\ncoffee and donut retail chain Dunkin\u2019 (formerly known as Dunkin\u2019 Donuts), which\nis continuing to take a no-nonsense attitude toward enforcing workplace\nimmigration laws. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dunkin\u2019 sued nine local franchisees in Delaware and Pennsylvania for not using E-Verify, according to Restaurant Business<\/a>. The magazine also reports that charges were made against the franchisees by Dunkin\u2019 of providing \u201cmisleading or inaccurate information\u201d to investigators. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In April, Dunkin\u2019 Brands, which includes Baskin-Robbins, took legal action against franchisees in Virginia and New Jersey over improper employment verification. In fact, according to The New Food Economy<\/a>, the company has taken action to shutter the doors of 30 locations on the East Coast since September 2018. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The online magazine says Dunkin\u2019 has in most cases followed\na similar process after conducting an initial review of store records. Once\nDunkin\u2019 discovered \u201cfranchisees hadn\u2019t verified the employment status of their\nworkers, [they]moved to terminate the franchise agreement, and then took the\nstore owners to court to enforce it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2006, Dunkin\u2019 Donuts became one of the first companies to participate in E-Verify<\/a>, the free online system that verifies potential employee eligibility by matching data from the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

More importantly, their participation in E-Verify is not for the sake of appearance. According to a 2016 article in Retail Wire<\/a>, franchises have posted signs in its store windows informing potential employees and the public that \u201cWe follow the law! This company hires lawful workers only.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The company\u2019s record of putting a premium on adherence\nto the law seems to have not impacted its bottom line, nor which political\nparty gets its money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dunkin\u2019 Brands, which is based in the sanctuary state of Massachusetts, has donated more in the latest election cycle<\/a> to Democrats ($15,139) than Republicans ($850). That is similar to previous campaign cycles<\/a> dating back to 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Dunkin\u2019 initially committed to more thoroughly vetting its employees, a company spokesman explained<\/a> that the company believed \u201cthis is the right thing to do for our franchisees, for Dunkin\u2019 Brands, and most of all, for our franchisees\u2019 workers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than a decade later, it remains the right thing\nto do for Dunkin\u2019 Brands, not to mention the millions of Dunkin\u2019 employees\nacross the nation. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bank of America recently announced plans to sever its existing relationship with any company providing services to migrant detention centers, while American Airlines asked that their planes not be used to transport migrants. In an age of \u201ccorporate social responsibility,\u201d these businesses have bowed to ginned-up pressure special interest-driven boycotts and Twitter campaigns. However, a<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":17545,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[11],"tags":[478,162,1524,5235],"yst_prominent_words":[2109,1938,6085,2173,2177,6087,2118,6078,6079,6080,2017,2319,6083,2659,5926,6084,2754,6086,6088,1937],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21691"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21691"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21691\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21692,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21691\/revisions\/21692"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21691"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}