Boycott Wendy's!....Scum.....working around the laws to screw it's employees.

Most businesses will do the same, they just can't afford to pay, and it's cheaper to hire more people with less hours, this is just working out great for the working man.
It's going to get a lot worse for people working in service. I live in Idaho now and it's already happening, businesses just don't make the same money out here as in New England so that's what they are doing, I was told by the owner of a Motel chain out in this area last year.
It's a shame but the only people it's really going to hurt are the working people!

"This decision is by one franchisee in Nebraska, said Bertini."

The wording of the story is deceptive and gives false impression that Corporate Wendy's has made this decision, and not a single franchisee who has no personal morals and prefers to harm his own employees as a form of political protest.

Why is Patch taking such great pains to be deceptive about the situation? Obviously, the author intends the reader to think that Wendy's as a corporation (and therefore the local stores) is acting this way, which makes me wonder whether this is just a stunt to get readers with a deceptive headline, or if there is a larger agenda...

The story suggests that there should be impact for local stores, that are not owned or controlled by the single franchisee in Nebraska, who has been clearly "disowned" by the company as relates to this politically-based protest and abuse of hourly workers.

Steve, the story should read "Independant Nebraska restaurant owner responds to Obamacare; Cutting Hours" and show a picture of THAT restaurant, not the one on Route 20 in Marlborough. Wendy's as a corporation clearly has nothing to do with this, and the local restaurant on Rte 20's photo is placed next to bold print saying "Wendy's responds to Obamacare; Cutting Hours" which clearly gives the wrong impression.

I am not asking about the politics. I am simply saying that Wendy's and the local Rte 20 store are not actually involved in any way- but they are what is presented as the subject of the story.. and I think that's wrong.

I guess what I am saying is that Patch doesn't have to post inflammatory headlines to get the article read. Yesterday, there was a story posted suggesting that there was validity to another birther attack demanding Obama not be sworn in, and presented it as a QUESTION of whether or not the president should be sworn in. The "story" was beyond the pale, and it was not presented as an opinion story.

I do understand Patch does have to answer to Huffington Post, but some of this stuff is really getting to be clearly biased. This story is at best bad journalism, at worst a political jab that mischaracterizes the story for a flashy headline.

Here's the start of the article, which was subsequently pulled from Patch :

Should Obama be Sworn In?

"Chief Justice John Roberts is being asked by conservative columnist Craige McMillan to not swear in President Barack Obama to a second term, according...."

ONE conservative columnist launches a birther attack disproven many times over, and Patch needs to give it validity and reprint it, asking people a question that clearly is designed to imply that there is any sort of truth to it? Shameful-- and very revealing. Come on Patch, you can do better than partisan jabs veiled as "news".

I'm glad this article is getting so many comments. The headline was the best attempt at summing up a complicated matter and I attempted to present the information as clearly as possible in the story itself.

Although the store in Marlborough and many surrounding stores are not affected by this decision in Nebraska, Wedny's Corporate still did not rule out this course of action either.

I am pretty sure that if I were the owner of the Wendy's franchise pictured, the one here in Marlborough, which is not in any way connected to the story, I would be pretty upset about this story, especially given the first comment made by a reader was clearly meaning that the local store should be boycotted. Neither Wendy's corporation nor the local franchisee are acting in this way, yet it is Wendy's (not yadda yadda LLC, the licensee from Nebraska) which is referred to as cutting hours, which is not true. Wendys has made that clear. Showing the photo of the local store implies that store is connected to the story.

The name and photo have been used for flash, not because they are connected or responsible in any way.

'Many'? NONE. There is a SINGLE franchisee in Nebraska who owns ONE store. Implying that affects (or is a considered course of action) of any of the others is clearly not realistic, as stated by the corporation. I am POSITIVE that Wendy's corporate doesn't allow a private single owner of a single store to dictate policy.. And to imply that they do is just silly.

Paul,
not to be hyper critical, but you are waving the "deceptive" flag here. The franchisee owns 11 stores as reported by WOWT-TV in Omaha.

interesting were commenting on the writing of the story not the content or impact that the ACA bill is having on small businesses all over the country.

Steve- the article isn't about Wendy's, or the store on Rt 20. I just feel that representing that this is "wendy's" and the store on rt 20 is not true. One good step in having what might be a reasonable discussion would be actually referring to the actual story in play, which is about a single franchisee and his stance that hourly workers don't deserve healthcare. As I pointed out, it's clear that as it is, the story will be misread... look at the first comment.

Only the "chosen few" don't have to live with Obamacare.

"Not that exemptions to ObamaCare (also known as the “ACA,” Affordable Care Act) haven’t already been made. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, no fewer than 1,200 waivers and exemptions to the sweeping new law have been granted by the Obama Administration. Among those who have been granted exemptions or fully waived from implementing the law among workers or members are:
McDonald’s
United Federation of Teachers
AARP
Jack in the Box
Teamsters locals nationwide
Pavers and Road Builders District Council
Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers
Waffle House
Nevada
New Hampshire
Maine
Aetna
Cigna
Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida
Universal Orlando
Aspen Skiing Co.
Ashley Furniture/Homestore
PepsiCo
Downstream Casino Resort
Firekeepers Casino
Bill Miller Bar-B-Q Enterprises
Panera
AMF Bowling
Ruby Tuesday
Foot Locker
The list is far, far too big to post here. But the fed does post online all those who have received waivers. Staggering.
Worth mentioning is that 40% of all those granted waivers and/or extensions from President Obama‘s landmark legislative victory are unions, and fully 20% of those granted waivers are in the California district represented by Democrat and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Muslims, Christian Scientists and the Amish will also be exempt.

Oh. And I forgot. The President and the Congress also don't have to live under Obamacare. Silly me.