{"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