It would be extremely interesting to know just how many current and past franchisees get off their butts. Typically franchisees do nothing expecting everyone else will turn up at the party. But they don't.
I expect franchisors to have a massive team of lobbyists who will fan out around the Capitol. These are going to be big, powerful companies that have existing relationships, frankly, with a lot of members of both parties.
Individual franchisees are needed to get this Bill across and a little push from franchisee associations would also help.
You know what works? Form and register a PAC and raise money. Then legislators will take your phone calls and read your letters and stage your testimony for you. Money attracts them and coalitions form. Then laws get passed, maybe.
We heard you the first time lobbyist. You would love franchisees and the associations to just give up or wait. Individuals made a difference in Australia and while the theatre lobbyists were working overtime to shut down our Bills, it was the people who pushed for fair franchising.
How much is in that greenbag? In Australia we refer to brown paperbags for political cash drop offs. Good nite ...
I definitely don't want franchisees to give up or wait. I want them To get their heads out of their asses and learn how to get a law passed. Did I say hire a lobbyist? Read it again, amigo.
Writing a letter isn't going to do it. The public doesn't care. There will be no mainstream media so there will be no pressure on legislators to act. Since there is no stick, it has to be carrot to get them to act to modify a law already on the books.
Existing franchisees are extremely unlikely to show up. It is economic suicide unless you are very powerful in your system. Those folks don't need the law. Ex franchisees with horror stories will want o show, but can't afford to travel.
What, besides re-election votes, do sitting legislators care about?
Did you read Don Sniggy's letter to the franchisee community and who it referenced as players in RI and Mass in getting a law passed and one introduced and reported favoralymout of committee? There were lots, but the 2 named were CFA and DDIFO.
They both have PACs. It doesn't take a lot of money, but money will talk. They both have lobbyists, but that is just an added help.
You are right, money helps - one area we could have improved a hell of a lot needed funding. The first WA Bill would have gotten through if we had the funds to pay travel etc for key speakers.
Actually I did read what you said and considered it to be dangerous. Read mine again; I never suggested franchisees get a lobbyist - I suggested they get off their asses and lobby for themselves because they can and it works.
Ray, franchisees absolutely need to mobilize. My point is that alone won't be enough because most franchisees won't do ANYTHING to help themselves.
The successful ones don't want to piss off their franchisors, the struggling ones cannot afford to take time off from working in their franchises because that can't afford to pay employees to do the work, and the failed ones with the best ammunition can't afford to attend a hearing in California.
I'm betting that there will be a few successful franchisees, mostly CFA folks who care about lobbying, but that isn't enough. They made excellent money in franchising with laws the that they are. Kinda hard to say that someone else failed because of lack of legal changes when the rich CFA guy made it work.
Someone needs to mobilze the folks who got screwed. They will give compelling testimony, but how do they get mobilized to attend? Who foots that bill?
GG asks: "Someone needs to mobilze the folks who got screwed. They will give compelling testimony, but how do they get mobilized to attend? Who foots that bill?"
Well, the CFA has to step up to the plate. The franchisee associations who fund the CFA have made fair franchising legislation a priority. Now they have a bill to get passed in California.
And it will take money - boatloads of it, some for lobbyists, some for travel, hearings, and more for publicity.
The publicity stunt called the "Bill of Rights" is over and now there is a real game to play. Good luck to them.
It takes more than some dude, sucking on a straw, trying to be cool to effect change. This is a state level battle. Any federal front is useless at this point. Getting an industry to give up their leverage over a Bill of Rights stunt is delusional .
This s the root of the problem: yet another call for someone ELSE to pay and do all of the work for frnchisees who washed out and never once did anything for themselves. When are they going to step up?
Some ex franchisees actually did show up to testify in the Massachusetts fair franchising hearings and they cleaned the IFA's clock. It wasn't just lawyers and lobbyists. Another help was that the geniuses at IFA agreed to schedule their "Coverall bill" hearing at the same session, adding MORE franchise ruination stories to be heard by the same committee, often leading legislators to point to the unrelated fair franchising law as a remedy.
I doubt that IFA will be so helpful this time around.
We have and will step up. We stood up when there was no Bill or any hope of support from the Franchise Community. We never asked anyone for anything and I will do it again.
I'm willing to take on the responsibility if needed. Just ask. We have a pretty compelling story. Our story is just one of many in the Naked City.
Franchises who think they will be retaliated against for speaking up, have to remember, if you are losing everything, the only thing you have left will be your voice.
Your voice, if you so choose, you are GIVING away. That just makes you another statistic. Instead MAKE A DIFFERENCE
But Assemblyman Huffman and Greenbag are right when they call for franchisees to get involved. If this goes down as it has here and I suspect how it goes down every time, then memebers of the Californian assembly will want to hear from those who know what the pointy end of franchising feels like.
CFA involvement would mean that the key franchising reform issues are presented in a way that counters what the IFA will put up.
IFA have shown it’s misinformation cards time and time again so we can expect little to differ there except it will localize some dodgy material.
The beauty of arguing for franchise reform is that the facts CFA would bring to the table are undeniable and factually supported and their arguments real while the IFA rhetorical spin can surely be seen through these days.
Tell me though; does IFA get into the dirty tricks that FCA [IFA's Aussie connection] utilized here to target pro-reform politicians?
You have obviously forgotten how much pent up rage those franchisees have. They have to go home everyday to families where many have seen their lifestyles sink to somewhere around the scarppings from the shoes of the lawyers they could not afford while most of the rest now rent and have no health insurance, the nice car is now a wreck and they go to public schools while the mothers work a part time job.
The money would help enormously to ensure the Bill gets across the line but never underestimate seething franchisees.
BUT I could be wrong if Californian franchisees are pussies ...
operates. A bunch of pissed off unorganized pussies won't accomplish anything. People in the U.S. have to fight state by state and get politically organized. Getting pissed does not work. Funding a lobbiest abduction getting organized is what gets results. everything else is just a windmill.
What comedy. Ray, here in America PACs speak and politicians listen. We formed a PAC to get beer laws changed in our state. Guess what? We changed them in 18 month of lobbying the legislature. Franchisees need to form state PACs and work at the state level. Power in numbers and money talks.
A PAC would be an enormous help but franchisees can achieve a hell of a lot because they are a hell of a lot. We proved it.
You only have to look around the US at State franchising legislation introductions and amendments to know that little folk franchisees were chipping away while brownbag franchisor lobbyists were hard at work pulling in the big bucks.
Little folk franchisees in Australia were laughed at when the push began to review the effectiveness of franchise legislation. And they were told that lobbyists for franchisors had some serious bucks to stop any reform.
But little folk franchisees managed to get 2 state Inquiries into franchising and that forced a federal Inquiry where all findings were critical of the then current federal legislation and the behaviour of a significant number of franchisors.
All Inquiries recommended numerous changes but franchisor lobbyists bought themselves window dressing federal amendments.
The state of South Australia retaliated by introducing State legislation that included good faith obligations and penalties for breach of Law along with some other fine deterrents for abusive practices.
Brownbag franchisor lobbyists had been working their collective butts off only to fail again when the state of Western Australia had a similar Bill tabled by a member of the government only to have that thrown out by a one vote majority involving more franchisor lobbyist backdoor dealing.
But Western Australia then had virtually the same Bill re-tabled by a member of that State’s Opposition government.
Brownbag all this achieved when good people politicians voice their outrage and with little folk franchisees emailing and knocking on doors all over the country.
Now 3 other States are talking about franchise legislation and the lobbyists are rubbing their collective hands together drooling at the thought of more franchisor money on a now win no refund basis.
So brownbag a small effort by a hell of a lot of little folk US franchisees can move mountains. You only have to look around the US at State franchising legislation introductions and amendments to know that little folk franchisees were chipping away while brownbag franchisor lobbyists were hard at work pulling in the big bucks.
Little folk franchisees, little folk, little folk, little folk franchisees pay the bills, create the jobs and they hold an awful lot of state and federal votes. That is the theatre brownbag and here again is the contact info for franchisees.
BTW; I don’t know how it works in the States but over here most politicians have Facebook pages and many are on Twitter. No need to push for reform, just plant the seed, water regularly and fertilize from time to time.
Ray writes: " it was the people who pushed for fair franchising." The people might have pushed, but it was Hungry Jack who did most of the shoving. Who do you look for in California to have their commercial self interest tied up with the passage of this bill?
Michael Jack's effort and money was a huge influence but the franchisees were hard at it long before and long after with the new tabled Bill. Jack was not involved until after the Western Australian Inquiry into franchising. That was driven by franchisees. And Jack had no influence on the federal effort or the South Australian effort that now has legislation in place. Little folk can move mountains.
I would be surprised in California of all places didn’t have at least one wealthy franchisee who could see benefits from Assemblyman Huffman’s Bill. Remember that Jack distanced himself from the push. He had his ‘people’ getting some media hits and going along to some association meetings arranged by franchisees.
Footnote: I forgot, Jack Cowin [and Jim Penman] also spent a lot of money on the FairGoLegislation website and thats when the brownbag lobbyists climbed all over him suggesting the move for reform was only about his battle with Yum. They went crazy in the media pushing the idea that the reform movement was not legitimate. It backfired; it brought out a hell of a lot more franchisees across a hell of a lot more brands. FCA did us a favour.
Peter Abetz had tabled the Bill after his initial interest came from Werndys' franchisees. No one buys Peter and when he started digging and got some media thats when the push got traction - franchisees came out of the woodwork. More on Wendys soon ...
"On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes .. .."
Assemblyman Huffman gives unusual insight by a true insider on how state legislatures work. He also points out that franchisees have the advantage in that we are voting constituents to the legislators we're trying to persuade, not big-money outsiders who can't vote locally. The article is pure gold on how franchisees too can work the system. It will serve well anyone who remembers what is said here for many years to come.
Sutton argues: "He also points out that franchisees have the advantage in that we are voting constituents to the legislators we're trying to persuade, not big-money outsiders who can't vote locally"
Your comments on voting power being laughable are off the mark. Read the article, Huffman didn't say all it takes is a vote with no accompanying action. If franchisees as a group have the facts, pull together, go public, and take heed of the tactics that Huffman brings up, the fact that they are constituents carries weight. Even a lone voter can surprisingly often make a difference. Further, constituents have relatives and lots of local ties. Chances are good that you have some mutual acquaintances with your legislator.
So, yes, a vote in silence is not going to be noticed. But take a look at what Huffman is saying. Things may be different in Canada, where Michael is from, and Australia, where Ray is from, but in the States, which I think I can speak to with authority, what he says works. I can say that positively from successful personal experience. Legislators are often delighted to hear from informed constituents and pump them for information and seek their support through such things as testimony and providing facts.
When all is said and done, doing something has a lot better chance of positive results than doing nothing. Huffman gives good advice. American franchisees and small businesspeople, do yourselves a favor and pay attention.
Michael and Ray, it seems to me it should work in your countries too. Or are things really different over there?
Sutton, the cartoon is from one the greatest American cartoonist ever, Charles Schultz.
I am merely relying his point of view about the relationship between voters, politicians and calls for change.
And I suppose the message is "laughable" because that was Schultz's goal - to make fun of the ever optimistic voter.
There is very little in this legislation which will assist in the formation of equal bargaining partners, the correct division of responsibilities in a franchise, etc.
And, yes, both Ray and I enjoy the irony our American cousins struggle with asking politians for legislation to reduce economic inequality without mentioning the dreaded words "collective action." Hope you have some Irish among you.
Sutton, not at all different and I thank you for expanding on what is in the article.
I am guessing but I would think that Canada and Australia and any other smaller country than the US have an easier road to reform. We have seen the approach effectively working here with franchise reform and many other issues that citizens get behind but, with regard to franchising reform we have a long way to go.
What governments often cannot get into their sometimes thick skulls or ignore for the purposes of not offending long established relationships with lobbyists such as the IFA, FCA, CFA etc etc, is that franchise relationship law reform does not create additional red tape or regulation or even costs that cannot be offset.
Additional or better disclosure does create additional costs for franchisors where typically those costs are exaggerated way out of proportion. Where disclosure reform is needed governments should consider the upside of economic gain when churning is at least minimized.
The arguement that franchisors would pass on those costs to franchisees comes from the same bullsiht that relationship law should reasonably counter. Seriously, routinely busineses have to deal with increases to the cost of being in business and they have to deal with it, hopefully for the greater economic good.
Personally I doubt we will ever see truly effective disclosure but I would argue that the better the disclosure requirements the more advantageous for quality franchisors.
Now this would not work with the Honourable Members of Australia's Federal Parliament and I genuinely suspect Canada and the US are just as unsophisticated as us. British Guide to Lobbying
That's right. When you call an assemblyman, you aren't voting, you are lobbying. When you write them, to tell them how to vote, you are lobbying. When you tell the assemblymember you are going to tell your fellow small business owners that the assemblymember represents their needs and to vote for them, you are lobbying. See how that works?
Optimistic guest writes: "When you tell the assemblymember you are going to tell your fellow small business owners that the assemblymember represents their needs and to vote for them, you are lobbying. See how that works?"
Yes, I understand the need to appeal to these simple myth to light a fire - but it is discouraging when you cannot even take the time to create a registration and writes as one the "guests".
How do you expect your group to form? Who would benefit? Why would the independent small businessmen support your cause? Where is your money coming from? Where is your social media presence?
Yeez, Obama and his crew are constantly exclaiming by email how important my $3 or $2 is to the "Cause". Last week's email from Senator Kerry almost got me to contribute - it was well done.
Where is your email campaign? You raising money from donations on BMM?
At the same time you are congratulating yourself for trying to get a law that comes close to the Ontario law in its protection of franchisees, go talk to Arch Jollelymore, lead plaintiff in the Tim Horton's class action about just how little "good faith and fair dealing" cuts when talking about the divisions of cooperation between franchisees and franchisor.
If you are so good at lobbying assembly members, lobby your fellow franchisees to make an effective, dues required, franchisee association - which is vigilant on every new change in the franchise agreement. Or you could leave your interests up to the State or Federal government and the characters that hang around there on a permanent basis.
Webster writes, "Obama and his crew are constantly exclaiming by email how important my $3 or $2 is to the 'Cause'. Last week's email from Senator Kerry almost got me to contribute - it was well done."
It just goes to show how desperate Obama is if he has to go to Canada in order to get campaign money for the "Cause." I'd like to contribute a few billion for Canada to annex to the United States and drive the Queen off the coins. What Canadian leader can I send my contribution to?
Well, I just got Ottawa to pull the most common image of the Queen off the market. After the Canadian penny, now to the next image. I'm working one step at a time.
By the way, why pay trillions for Canada when a few billion strategically placed in the right pocket will do.
Richard never fails to amuse with his insights: "Canadians really know what is important for proper balance in their society. Lawyers and other prostitutes going unregulated - a veritable paradise."
Perhaps we will find an article soon by his famous alter ego.
Fair franchising: Democrat Assemblyman Jared Huffman speaks with franchising news site Blue MauMau about the fair franchising bill he introduced three weeks ago to the state of California. The bill, which you can read here, aims to protect franchisees from franchiser abuses.
I'm an x cleaner. I was
This comment has been moved here.Slack franchisees get nothing done
It would be extremely interesting to know just how many current and past franchisees get off their butts. Typically franchisees do nothing expecting everyone else will turn up at the party. But they don't.
Individual franchisees are needed to get this Bill across and a little push from franchisee associations would also help.
Lobby for fair franchising
You know what works? Form and register a PAC and raise money. Then legislators will take your phone calls and read your letters and stage your testimony for you. Money attracts them and coalitions form. Then laws get passed, maybe.
The rest is just theater.
We heard you the first time
We heard you the first time lobbyist. You would love franchisees and the associations to just give up or wait. Individuals made a difference in Australia and while the theatre lobbyists were working overtime to shut down our Bills, it was the people who pushed for fair franchising.
How much is in that greenbag? In Australia we refer to brown paperbags for political cash drop offs. Good nite ...
Ray, you can't read. Or you see things that aren't there
I definitely don't want franchisees to give up or wait. I want them To get their heads out of their asses and learn how to get a law passed. Did I say hire a lobbyist? Read it again, amigo.
Writing a letter isn't going to do it. The public doesn't care. There will be no mainstream media so there will be no pressure on legislators to act. Since there is no stick, it has to be carrot to get them to act to modify a law already on the books.
Existing franchisees are extremely unlikely to show up. It is economic suicide unless you are very powerful in your system. Those folks don't need the law. Ex franchisees with horror stories will want o show, but can't afford to travel.
What, besides re-election votes, do sitting legislators care about?
Did you read Don Sniggy's letter to the franchisee community and who it referenced as players in RI and Mass in getting a law passed and one introduced and reported favoralymout of committee? There were lots, but the 2 named were CFA and DDIFO.
They both have PACs. It doesn't take a lot of money, but money will talk. They both have lobbyists, but that is just an added help.
Forgot, you were quick
You are right, money helps - one area we could have improved a hell of a lot needed funding. The first WA Bill would have gotten through if we had the funds to pay travel etc for key speakers.
Actually I did read what you
Actually I did read what you said and considered it to be dangerous. Read mine again; I never suggested franchisees get a lobbyist - I suggested they get off their asses and lobby for themselves because they can and it works.
Franchisees need to act
Ray, franchisees absolutely need to mobilize. My point is that alone won't be enough because most franchisees won't do ANYTHING to help themselves.
The successful ones don't want to piss off their franchisors, the struggling ones cannot afford to take time off from working in their franchises because that can't afford to pay employees to do the work, and the failed ones with the best ammunition can't afford to attend a hearing in California.
I'm betting that there will be a few successful franchisees, mostly CFA folks who care about lobbying, but that isn't enough. They made excellent money in franchising with laws the that they are. Kinda hard to say that someone else failed because of lack of legal changes when the rich CFA guy made it work.
Someone needs to mobilze the folks who got screwed. They will give compelling testimony, but how do they get mobilized to attend? Who foots that bill?
Footing the Bill
GG asks: "Someone needs to mobilze the folks who got screwed. They will give compelling testimony, but how do they get mobilized to attend? Who foots that bill?"
Well, the CFA has to step up to the plate. The franchisee associations who fund the CFA have made fair franchising legislation a priority. Now they have a bill to get passed in California.
And it will take money - boatloads of it, some for lobbyists, some for travel, hearings, and more for publicity.
The publicity stunt called the "Bill of Rights" is over and now there is a real game to play. Good luck to them.
The "Bill of Rights" was/is a complete joke.
It takes more than some dude, sucking on a straw, trying to be cool to effect change. This is a state level battle. Any federal front is useless at this point. Getting an industry to give up their leverage over a Bill of Rights stunt is delusional .
The CFA's Uniform Franchisee Bil of Rights; what it means to 02
Gee, dude, YOU are paying attention to it.
Footing the bill
Aha!
This s the root of the problem: yet another call for someone ELSE to pay and do all of the work for frnchisees who washed out and never once did anything for themselves. When are they going to step up?
Some ex franchisees actually did show up to testify in the Massachusetts fair franchising hearings and they cleaned the IFA's clock. It wasn't just lawyers and lobbyists. Another help was that the geniuses at IFA agreed to schedule their "Coverall bill" hearing at the same session, adding MORE franchise ruination stories to be heard by the same committee, often leading legislators to point to the unrelated fair franchising law as a remedy.
I doubt that IFA will be so helpful this time around.
Fair Franchising Bill
We have and will step up. We stood up when there was no Bill or any hope of support from the Franchise Community. We never asked anyone for anything and I will do it again.
I'm willing to take on the responsibility if needed. Just ask. We have a pretty compelling story. Our story is just one of many in the Naked City.
Franchises who think they will be retaliated against for speaking up, have to remember, if you are losing everything, the only thing you have left will be your voice.
Your voice, if you so choose, you are GIVING away. That just makes you another statistic. Instead MAKE A DIFFERENCE
That’s more like it Michael
But Assemblyman Huffman and Greenbag are right when they call for franchisees to get involved. If this goes down as it has here and I suspect how it goes down every time, then memebers of the Californian assembly will want to hear from those who know what the pointy end of franchising feels like.
CFA involvement would mean that the key franchising reform issues are presented in a way that counters what the IFA will put up.
IFA have shown it’s misinformation cards time and time again so we can expect little to differ there except it will localize some dodgy material.
The beauty of arguing for franchise reform is that the facts CFA would bring to the table are undeniable and factually supported and their arguments real while the IFA rhetorical spin can surely be seen through these days.
Tell me though; does IFA get into the dirty tricks that FCA [IFA's Aussie connection] utilized here to target pro-reform politicians?
You can't mobilize the unmotivated.
People who won't pay the expenses to go somewhere and testify are not mobilizable in any real sense.
So Richard, you're saying
So Richard, you're saying Californian franchisees are pussies. Fair enough, their call.
I really have to be away for a while; I'm baby sitting a 6 month old and we are expecting more poo here than there.
You have obviously forgotten
You have obviously forgotten how much pent up rage those franchisees have. They have to go home everyday to families where many have seen their lifestyles sink to somewhere around the scarppings from the shoes of the lawyers they could not afford while most of the rest now rent and have no health insurance, the nice car is now a wreck and they go to public schools while the mothers work a part time job.
The money would help enormously to ensure the Bill gets across the line but never underestimate seething franchisees.
BUT I could be wrong if Californian franchisees are pussies ...
Ray, you're just ebismally clueless on how American politics
operates. A bunch of pissed off unorganized pussies won't accomplish anything. People in the U.S. have to fight state by state and get politically organized. Getting pissed does not work. Funding a lobbiest abduction getting organized is what gets results. everything else is just a windmill.
As I pointed out earlier
As I pointed out earlier browenbag zor representative, franchisees in the US have already achieved state reform and in many states.
Brownbagger, this works on Tyler so I just thought I’d give it a go on you.
Ray the Aussie socialists giving political advise to Americans.
What comedy. Ray, here in America PACs speak and politicians listen. We formed a PAC to get beer laws changed in our state. Guess what? We changed them in 18 month of lobbying the legislature. Franchisees need to form state PACs and work at the state level. Power in numbers and money talks.
Gee I missed you
A PAC would be an enormous help but franchisees can achieve a hell of a lot because they are a hell of a lot. We proved it.
Obviously you don’t work weekends brownbag
Little folk franchisees in Australia were laughed at when the push began to review the effectiveness of franchise legislation. And they were told that lobbyists for franchisors had some serious bucks to stop any reform.
But little folk franchisees managed to get 2 state Inquiries into franchising and that forced a federal Inquiry where all findings were critical of the then current federal legislation and the behaviour of a significant number of franchisors.
All Inquiries recommended numerous changes but franchisor lobbyists bought themselves window dressing federal amendments.
The state of South Australia retaliated by introducing State legislation that included good faith obligations and penalties for breach of Law along with some other fine deterrents for abusive practices.
Brownbag franchisor lobbyists had been working their collective butts off only to fail again when the state of Western Australia had a similar Bill tabled by a member of the government only to have that thrown out by a one vote majority involving more franchisor lobbyist backdoor dealing.
But Western Australia then had virtually the same Bill re-tabled by a member of that State’s Opposition government.
Brownbag all this achieved when good people politicians voice their outrage and with little folk franchisees emailing and knocking on doors all over the country.
Now 3 other States are talking about franchise legislation and the lobbyists are rubbing their collective hands together drooling at the thought of more franchisor money on a now win no refund basis.
So brownbag a small effort by a hell of a lot of little folk US franchisees can move mountains. You only have to look around the US at State franchising legislation introductions and amendments to know that little folk franchisees were chipping away while brownbag franchisor lobbyists were hard at work pulling in the big bucks.
Little folk franchisees, little folk, little folk, little folk franchisees pay the bills, create the jobs and they hold an awful lot of state and federal votes. That is the theatre brownbag and here again is the contact info for franchisees.
BTW; I don’t know how it works in the States but over here most politicians have Facebook pages and many are on Twitter. No need to push for reform, just plant the seed, water regularly and fertilize from time to time.
Hungry Jack
Ray writes: " it was the people who pushed for fair franchising." The people might have pushed, but it was Hungry Jack who did most of the shoving. Who do you look for in California to have their commercial self interest tied up with the passage of this bill?
Michael Jack's effort and
Michael Jack's effort and money was a huge influence but the franchisees were hard at it long before and long after with the new tabled Bill. Jack was not involved until after the Western Australian Inquiry into franchising. That was driven by franchisees. And Jack had no influence on the federal effort or the South Australian effort that now has legislation in place. Little folk can move mountains.
I would be surprised in California of all places didn’t have at least one wealthy franchisee who could see benefits from Assemblyman Huffman’s Bill. Remember that Jack distanced himself from the push. He had his ‘people’ getting some media hits and going along to some association meetings arranged by franchisees.
Footnote: I forgot, Jack Cowin [and Jim Penman] also spent a lot of money on the FairGoLegislation website and thats when the brownbag lobbyists climbed all over him suggesting the move for reform was only about his battle with Yum. They went crazy in the media pushing the idea that the reform movement was not legitimate. It backfired; it brought out a hell of a lot more franchisees across a hell of a lot more brands. FCA did us a favour.
Peter Abetz had tabled the Bill after his initial interest came from Werndys' franchisees. No one buys Peter and when he started digging and got some media thats when the push got traction - franchisees came out of the woodwork. More on Wendys soon ...
"On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes .. .."
Excellent Insight
Assemblyman Huffman gives unusual insight by a true insider on how state legislatures work. He also points out that franchisees have the advantage in that we are voting constituents to the legislators we're trying to persuade, not big-money outsiders who can't vote locally. The article is pure gold on how franchisees too can work the system. It will serve well anyone who remembers what is said here for many years to come.
Pure Gold?
Sutton argues: "He also points out that franchisees have the advantage in that we are voting constituents to the legislators we're trying to persuade, not big-money outsiders who can't vote locally"
Voting Power Laugh
Michael & Ray,
Your comments on voting power being laughable are off the mark. Read the article, Huffman didn't say all it takes is a vote with no accompanying action. If franchisees as a group have the facts, pull together, go public, and take heed of the tactics that Huffman brings up, the fact that they are constituents carries weight. Even a lone voter can surprisingly often make a difference. Further, constituents have relatives and lots of local ties. Chances are good that you have some mutual acquaintances with your legislator.
So, yes, a vote in silence is not going to be noticed. But take a look at what Huffman is saying. Things may be different in Canada, where Michael is from, and Australia, where Ray is from, but in the States, which I think I can speak to with authority, what he says works. I can say that positively from successful personal experience. Legislators are often delighted to hear from informed constituents and pump them for information and seek their support through such things as testimony and providing facts.
When all is said and done, doing something has a lot better chance of positive results than doing nothing. Huffman gives good advice. American franchisees and small businesspeople, do yourselves a favor and pay attention.
Michael and Ray, it seems to me it should work in your countries too. Or are things really different over there?
Sutton
Sutton, the cartoon is from one the greatest American cartoonist ever, Charles Schultz.
I am merely relying his point of view about the relationship between voters, politicians and calls for change.
And I suppose the message is "laughable" because that was Schultz's goal - to make fun of the ever optimistic voter.
There is very little in this legislation which will assist in the formation of equal bargaining partners, the correct division of responsibilities in a franchise, etc.
And, yes, both Ray and I enjoy the irony our American cousins struggle with asking politians for legislation to reduce economic inequality without mentioning the dreaded words "collective action." Hope you have some Irish among you.
Sutton, not at all different
Sutton, not at all different and I thank you for expanding on what is in the article.
I am guessing but I would think that Canada and Australia and any other smaller country than the US have an easier road to reform. We have seen the approach effectively working here with franchise reform and many other issues that citizens get behind but, with regard to franchising reform we have a long way to go.
What governments often cannot get into their sometimes thick skulls or ignore for the purposes of not offending long established relationships with lobbyists such as the IFA, FCA, CFA etc etc, is that franchise relationship law reform does not create additional red tape or regulation or even costs that cannot be offset.
Additional or better disclosure does create additional costs for franchisors where typically those costs are exaggerated way out of proportion. Where disclosure reform is needed governments should consider the upside of economic gain when churning is at least minimized.
The arguement that franchisors would pass on those costs to franchisees comes from the same bullsiht that relationship law should reasonably counter. Seriously, routinely busineses have to deal with increases to the cost of being in business and they have to deal with it, hopefully for the greater economic good.
Personally I doubt we will ever see truly effective disclosure but I would argue that the better the disclosure requirements the more advantageous for quality franchisors.
Brittish lobbying manual
Now this would not work with the Honourable Members of Australia's Federal Parliament and I genuinely suspect Canada and the US are just as unsophisticated as us. British Guide to Lobbying
It takes a hell of a lot more
It takes a hell of a lot more than being able to vote. Franchisees have to get off their butts and lobby armed with facts. And keep lobbying.
How to lobby
That's right. When you call an assemblyman, you aren't voting, you are lobbying. When you write them, to tell them how to vote, you are lobbying. When you tell the assemblymember you are going to tell your fellow small business owners that the assemblymember represents their needs and to vote for them, you are lobbying. See how that works?
Silly Guest
Optimistic guest writes: "When you tell the assemblymember you are going to tell your fellow small business owners that the assemblymember represents their needs and to vote for them, you are lobbying. See how that works?"
Yes, I understand the need to appeal to these simple myth to light a fire - but it is discouraging when you cannot even take the time to create a registration and writes as one the "guests".
How do you expect your group to form? Who would benefit? Why would the independent small businessmen support your cause? Where is your money coming from? Where is your social media presence?
Yeez, Obama and his crew are constantly exclaiming by email how important my $3 or $2 is to the "Cause". Last week's email from Senator Kerry almost got me to contribute - it was well done.
Where is your email campaign? You raising money from donations on BMM?
At the same time you are congratulating yourself for trying to get a law that comes close to the Ontario law in its protection of franchisees, go talk to Arch Jollelymore, lead plaintiff in the Tim Horton's class action about just how little "good faith and fair dealing" cuts when talking about the divisions of cooperation between franchisees and franchisor.
If you are so good at lobbying assembly members, lobby your fellow franchisees to make an effective, dues required, franchisee association - which is vigilant on every new change in the franchise agreement. Or you could leave your interests up to the State or Federal government and the characters that hang around there on a permanent basis.
Money makes the world go around
Webster writes, "Obama and his crew are constantly exclaiming by email how important my $3 or $2 is to the 'Cause'. Last week's email from Senator Kerry almost got me to contribute - it was well done."
It just goes to show how desperate Obama is if he has to go to Canada in order to get campaign money for the "Cause." I'd like to contribute a few billion for Canada to annex to the United States and drive the Queen off the coins. What Canadian leader can I send my contribution to?
Annexation
RM writes: "I'd like to contribute a few billion for Canada to annex to the United States"
Yeah, unfortunately Canada would demand and get more than a few trillion to annex the US. But keep collecting those Susan B.'s
Got rid of the penny, now...
Well, I just got Ottawa to pull the most common image of the Queen off the market. After the Canadian penny, now to the next image. I'm working one step at a time.
By the way, why pay trillions for Canada when a few billion strategically placed in the right pocket will do.
Wait a minute. I think it says glorious things about Canada
that they tolerate alternative life styles as part of the fabric of their culture. Their queens must be jubilant.
Can't you imagine Mississippi putting one of its many queens on some official emblem?
Canada is obviously leading the way on LGBT tolerance by having a queen on its coinage.
Supreme Court
Our Supreme Court just said that our current prostitution laws are not constituitional, also.
Does that mean that your lawyers will now be unregulated?
Imagine a country that orders its priorities in relationship to real values.
Canadians really know what is important for proper balance in their society. Lawyers and other prostitutes going unregulated - a veritable paradise.
Prostitutes and Lawyers - Equal at Last
Richard never fails to amuse with his insights: "Canadians really know what is important for proper balance in their society. Lawyers and other prostitutes going unregulated - a veritable paradise."
Perhaps we will find an article soon by his famous alter ego.
Huffman interview makes WSJ
Blue MauMau is on Wall Street Journal's must read list for today.
Post new comment