As a Dunkin’ Donuts executive for over 19 years I was fortunate to witness and participate in the growth of an iconic American business. During this period Dunkin’ Donuts grew from a few hundred shops to many thousands spread throughout the world. I saw and experienced a lot more than can be expressed in this short column but one of most memorable experiences I had was working personally with many Portuguese immigrants who came to the United States from the Azores and ended up as Dunkin’ Donuts franchisees. Many of the Dunkin’ franchise shops in New England can be traced back to Portuguese immigrants from the small farming village of Saint Michaels in the Azores.
Interestingly it was a series of devastating volcanic eruptions that rocked the Azores in 1957-58 which led to a wave of Portuguese immigration into the United States. Against warnings that it was too narrowly focused and disruptive of efforts at larger more sweeping immigration reform, Senators Pastore of Rhodes Island and Kennedy of Massachusetts (later President Kennedy) championed The Azorean Refugee Act which permitted 1500 Azorean visas for entrance into the United States – largely from the volcanic and earthquake ravaged Azorean island of Fayal. This Act challenged the prior racial bias of our immigration quota system and helped pave the way to the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Seeking economic opportunity and political freedom, the predecessors of the many Portuguese franchise owners in New England where amongst those who originally came to America under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
I worked with and became friends with a number of these immigrants as we all grew and prospered together while living the American Dream. The positive impact the Portuguese immigrant community has had on the growth and success of the Dunkin’ Donuts system can hardly be overstated. Their story is the story of America and all the millions of immigrants who have come to America over the last 300 years – seeking a new life; a new beginning.
Typically an Azorean immigrant would arrive in America and live in a spare room or even the cellar of a relative. The initial franchisees I knew were always men and they would immediately begin working at entry level jobs in textile factories, machine shops and bakeries like Dunkin’ Donuts. They spent little, worked long hard hours and saved as much as they could. Their social life was largely centered around their families and ethnic clubs.
A typical path followed was to start in an entry level job, save and work their way up for 10 or more years and then buy an existing Dunkin’ franchise. As time went on the initial Portuguese franchisees brought more and more of their close friends and relatives from the Azores into the Dunkin’ business. The rest is history. Today over 60 % of the Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in New England are owned and operated by Portuguese families – and most trace their roots in America directly back to the original immigrants that came over to this country from the pineapple farming village of Saint Michaels in the Azores.
The Portuguese immigrant community positively impacted the corporate culture and fueled the growth of Dunkin’ Donuts in several important ways – particularly in the critical years of the 80’s and 90’s which were the pivotal growth years of the Dunkin’ system. This wave of energetic, hardworking, confident and optimistic group of franchisees provided a burst of energy that played a major role in propelling Dunkin’ Donuts from a few hundred shops to the thousands we know today. They were team players and always open to innovation and new business strategies. They rarely hesitated to re-invest back into the Dunkin’ business. They were also very loyal and dedicated to the Dunkin’ system. I remember talking to one successful multi-unit operator who often referred to himself as working for the company – even though he wholly owned several Dunkin’ shops.
Of course Portuguese immigrants did not build the Dunkin’ Donuts system all by themselves. The founding family, largely Bill Rosenberg and later his son Bob Rosenberg, conceived of and brought into existence the entire idea of franchising donut shops way back in the 50’s. In fact Dunkin’ Donuts was one of the original American franchise businesses to expand regionally and nationally after WWII. Bill Rosenberg also embodied the American Dream. Working very hard himself, practically since he could walk, he created and founded one of the great iconic American brands. The Rosenbergs and the Portuguese immigrants from the Azores were partners in the American Dream. And the pathway between this partnership was always a two way street.
In reflecting back on these times I am struck by two thoughts. One is that the huge success enjoyed by the Portuguese immigrants at Dunkin’ always began with a job – often an entry level job at that. All they needed or asked for was that first step on the ladder and when they got it they climbed it with unrelenting gusto – and in the process helped change the American business landscape. My other reflection relates to the huge impact a relatively small group of people from a small pineapple growing village can have when given economic and political freedom under our American System. The Portuguese immigrant success at Dunkin’ Donuts clearly flows from their own dedication and hard work but we should never forget or take for granted the essential role played by our unique American System of economic and political freedom that has evolved over some 300 years. Our American System was created and built at great sacrifice by all our forbearers and it clearly set the stage and made possible the fantastic success of the Rosenbergs and the Azorean immigrants from Saint Michaels at Dunkin’ Donuts.
Kevin McCarthy an be reached at: mccart9@gmail.com. Kevin is also a member of the Cohasset Board of Selectman (BoS) but his above comments are his own personal views and are not attributable to the BoS.
As a Dunkie fan I have enjoyed kibitzing with many of these folks on my stops on Rte. 123 between Scituate and Brockton. But I never knew that many were actually owners or in families of owners. That is the best news of all.
Bob, the sentence you quote does not claim that everyone who came here did so voluntarily. It says that this particular story is one shared in a general sense by all the millions who DID come to start a new life. I’m sure the diarist is aware of the history of slavery in this country, but that’s not the experience he chose to write about today. As for Massachusetts, we were the first to have slavery, BUT also the first to abolish, and I for one prefer to celebrate and brag about the latter.
When the state ratified the 13th amendment, as the Wikipedia entry in the promotion comment helpful explains.
…points out that no slaves were recorded on the 1790 census. I have seen countless references to slavery being effectively abolished by SJC fiat in 1783 when they pointed out that the Constitution says “All men are born FREE and equal…” By the logic that only legislative action counts I believe we don’t have marriage equality yet either. Goodrich effectively made it so in 2004 and we rightly brag about being the first, but I’m pretty sure all the legislature ever did was try and fail to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot reversing that decision.
The SJC strongly suggested the legislature amend the marriage laws as needed in compliance with the decision. The legislature asked the court for clarification: would civil unions suffice? The SJC, in February 2004, said no, equal means equal.
That being the case, as I understand it no legislative action was needed other than eventual repeal of the 1913 law on out-of-state couples who could not marry in their home states. That’s because the marriage statutes, MGL Ch. 207, didn’t specify gender.
The SJC held that this silence meant the statute had imported the understanding of marriage under the common law: one man, one woman. But given the ruling that application of that understanding violates the state constitution, denial of a marriage license on that ground would not be constitutional. So despite Romney’s hemming and hawing, Dan Winslow (his counsel at the time) ordered clerks to resign if unwilling to comply with the SJC’s two rulings. Legislature didn’t amend the laws but it didn’t need to.
….that no legislative action was needed on marriage, and that was precisely the point I was trying to make about slavery. Judicial rulings did the heavy lifting in both cases and in both cases cited the same opening sentence to the state Bill of Rights. The 13th amendment wasn’t needed for MA’s sake, but MA ratified it to help abolish slavery nationwide.
On the slavery situation. I believe marriage was more clear-cut in that I’m not aware of any couples being denied a license after the decision took effect on May 17, 2004. Slavery, after the Quock Walker case, stuck around a few years because a slaveowner could just wait for someone to force the issue. The court’s order was precedential but formally only applied to the case before the court. Not every slave could, as a practical matter, bring suit. But slavery did evaporate here in relatively few years, even if many slaves were pressed into formal indentured servitude. Certainly invocation of the 1865 date is misleading.