The article titled "Judge rejects McDonald's labor practices settlement" is the most recent article on the McDonald's case which is in lawsuit since 2015. It all started in 2012 when McDonald's workers began protesting for higher wages and claimed they were threatened with firing and retaliation by management. Workers, including union groups, filed a report with the NLRB, arguing that McDonald's was a joint employer and should be held responsible for the franchises. If McDonald's were a joint employer, they would technically control working conditions and be held responsible for any labor law violations committed by the franchises. It would also require negotiating with union workers. This law has been slightly amended in recent years and most recently in December it was ruled that a company must have "direct and immediate control over workers" to be a joint employer. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay This whole concept is what interested me, given that the law changed so recently will likely have a huge impact on the outcome of this trial. The article focused on how Judge Esposito rejected McDonald's proposed settlement. This included giving workers back a portion of their wages and providing them with detailed notice of the settlement and their union rights. Micah Wissinger, an attorney for SEIU and affiliated groups, said, “The way this is all structured, all responsibility is on the franchisees, there is no obligation on McDonald's part. One of the reasons she rejected this proposal is that they have no real obligation to do anything. The judge said that was unreasonable and suggested that the company had delayed this trial as long as possible, hoping to get a more Republican-leaning attorney general. I was intrigued by the extent to which policies like this can influence important decisions in the world of labor relations. After reading this article and doing some research on the last years of this trial, I now understand the seriousness of this case and the implications it could have on McDonald's. If it is decided that McDonald's is a joint employer, then they would be responsible for how their employees in more than 13,000 stores would be paid and treated. It would also mean employees would have the opportunity to unionize and negotiate with the company. My first thought about this was how huge this union could be and how many people could be members. If that happens, they could have a lot of bargaining power, which could translate into higher wages almost indefinitely. McDonald's could find itself paying much higher wages and facing all the franchise-related lawsuits. My opinion on this case is that I agree with the decision made by Judge Esposito. I don't think it's fair that McDonald's proposed settlement essentially holds franchisees responsible for management's actions, and McDonald's itself would not be at fault. I also believe that workers should be able to protest and negotiate for higher wages without facing retaliation. I can understand that McDonald's doesn't want this to happen because a union of these workers would have great purchasing power, but I just think it's fair because they..