Universal Franchisee Bill of Rights Passes 1000 Endorsements

The Universal Franchisee Bill of Rights (UFBoR), www.franchiseebillofrights.org, passed 1000 endorsements and ratifications today.  The UFBoR was released by the Coalition of Franchisee Associations last year as a fairness doctrine after input from many franchisee advocates. 

While this milestone is reached the day after Independence Day, the last thing we are trying to do is make a Declaration of Independence.  In fact, we want just the opposite, a Declaration of Joint Dependence.  While many have an issue with using “Partner” as that can have specific legal ramifications, I think we should embrace the idea of Co-Investors in the brands.  Franchisees and Franchisors need each other to be successful.  Adherence to the UFBoR would give franchisees the rights expected when recognized as a co-investor. 

The most important thing at this time is continue to grow the support of the UFBoR, which will assist in providing the market and political forces needed to change the franchise industry.  There is an imbalance in the industry that is keeping it from realizing its potential.  The CFA will continue to work as a representative voice of franchisees, promoting the UFBoR and policies that strengthen the franchising industry towards a more equitable and profitable position for franchisees.  When that balance is achieved, franchisees will increase their desire to invest in and employ in their local communities through franchising.  Franchise advocates claim that franchising can be the engine that will grow the economy, but this is only possible long term when balance is achieved.

Thanks to all that have endorsed the UFBoR and we look forward to growing that endorsement number even further.

Profile picture for user Keith Miller


So freakin' WHAT.

Shear number of endoresements doesn't mean diddly squat.

Maybe an endorsement from a particular person or group would have an effect on someone who holds that group or person to be an authority. But merely thre equivalent of 1,000 "likes" doesn't cut it. From WHOM? Not just "lots of people and asscociations", WHICH ONES?

If you are going to go by shear numbers, you'd better have a number in the millions. Nowadays people can get 1,000 likes in a day for a lame cat youtube. Given the shear number of franchised business in the U.S, only 1,000 actually seems lame, particularly as someone else proudly posted that the endoresements are coming from not only f'sees, but their friends and families. Great, so only 200 people got 4 others to "endorse", who might not have a clue what they are actually endorsing, but only douing it fro their friend or relative.  

Sorry, I'm not impressed.

The Bill of Rights is rolling

No one cares if you, in particular, are impressed or not. Seriously.

Petition for World Peace is rolling, also

Already thousands have signed the petition to stop all war and end hunger.

I expect that the petition will have just as much impact as the "bill of rights".

Especially since the World Peace petition got Granville's endorsement.

People fail to realize that world peace only leads to

overpopulation and outrunning of resources sufficient to sustain life - which leads to conflict over access to the scarce resources.

Utopian sentiments are wonderful. Fanatics believe in some impossibilist hereafter in which they will have everything they can't possibly attain here on earth - think 72 women or worse, more ethan 72 women.

Franchisees want to believe that government will make their lives easier. If someone knows of any government that made anyone's life easier, will they please tell us about that. Welfare didn't make anyone's life easier. It just prolonged their marginal existence. The notion is rarely/never the reality.

You cannot legislate competence.

Franchisee Bill of Rights

"You cannot legislate competence"


Where else did it seem that this PR piece was going?

The Cost of Legislative Change

Guest cryptically suggests: "NO, BUT YOU CAN BUY LEGISLATION.

Where else did it seem that this PR piece was going?"

Really, and have you checked lately on the CFA's PAC fund?  You think 30k is going to buy much?

Score is: 841 for IFA vs. 28 for CFA

In 2012 cycle, the IFA pac raised $841K and spent $546K, leaving them with over $300K to spread around. 88% went to Republicans.

The CFA pac raised 28K, spent 3K, and only gave to one federal candidate, a Republican from Iowa.

Details on OpenSecrets.Org

The Cost of Legislative change

Michael, you are missing the point, holed up in your igloo in the frozen north.

Who are the CFA or other franchisee associations with wide membership? It's not the IFA or any other Washington D.C. paid gun for hire. This is an entirely different creature.

CFA and other franchisee associations have many well funded members, many with their own PACs, many of them with wealthy individual members. MORE IMPORTANTLY, it is comprised local business owners IN THE DISTRICT of the Congressional Reps and Senators across the country. Most CFA members, for example, already have PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS with their reps and senators, and have ALREADY CONTRIBUTED personal dollars to them. These contributions often span years of support. You forgot to count the money already donated, or the actual votes that these business owners and their employees and families provide to these people back in their own communities.

(BTW-Canadians can't vote, and neither can the IFA or any other group that isn't comprised of franchise owners registered in districts across the nation.)

Those are much more valuable relationships to Congress. It is about money, for sure, but it is equally about votes. Did you happen to calculate the value of a history of hosting local fundraisers for their reps and senators? Don't you think having an event in your house for your senator or raining funds for a local charity that your rep champions means more than a check in the mail from Casino Jack Abramoff?

I know that you missed this, so if you are still stuck on counting PAC dollars in only one corner of the igloo, why would CFA tap, say, AAHOA or Burger King members for CFA PAC donations when they have hundred$ of thousand$ in their own? The CFA or any other single PAC doesn't necessarily need its own PAC money in this world.

I can't believe that a franchisee advocate would not know this. Whose side are you on? Is it the franchisees'? You don't even seem to know who they are.

It would seem that no association is interested in buying the

long desired legislation, either singly or in some kind of FranWadPac configuration.

I would argue that perhaps this is tacit recognition of mine and Fuwa's point that legislation is really not going to cure the perceived ills, so why waste good bar tab money on it.

Why not legislation?

Government is usually the source of problems rather than the cure.

However, the right type of legislation can be helpful if it is not overly intrusive. Think guardrails or lane markers. They do make the driving experience manageable when sharing the road with others.

They don't guarantee that you get to your designation faster, make your vehicle more fuel efficient or turn a Hyundai into a Ferrari, but they function as intended.

When some talk about legislation, they are did eyed lunatics that want some magic law to turn a bad investor into Warren Buffet when the best thing for them was to remain en employee. No law will fix that. No law can or should try to fix a flawed business model, etc.

The National Fairness in Franchising Act

It is hereby declared unlawful for any person or firm to engage in any act in connection with the purchase or sale of a franchise, or with the operation of any business that is franchised, that is:

1.     Inconsistent with good practice;

2.     Inappropriate in light of the circumstances of the moment in the context of the subject matter of the act;

3.     Potentially unwise, imprudent, incontinent or urinary;

4.     Might lend oppropribrium as an aspect of any retort, response, question or comment;

5.     Could possibly lead to interperate behavior by any participant.

6.     The FTC is hereby charged with responsibility to hold hearings and develop regulations to implement this act.

7.     Any person who shall be ajudicated to have done any act violalting of this law may be sentenced to a minimum of six months up pto a maximum of two and one half years living with the spouse of the person who was victimized by the accused conduct.

National Fairness in Franchising Act

That was awesome. Especially the penalty!

Ain't no such ting as fair

Solomon is wise. Zees need to stop 'dem silly efforts to prevent us from doing what we'se do best.

We franchisors will continue our 50 years of legislative efforts to create our Heaven and stop the hell of a mess youse would make. When youse feel the urge to legislate, just remember that the gubm't isn't the answer to your problems. You zees got better tings to do - like mind youse own business. I'll represent youse, and put it on your tab. Youse just keep your head down minding the store.

Youse either with us or against us. If youse against us, even wise Solomon won't be enough to saves you. Capiche?

Votes and Dollars

Guest opines: "I know that you missed this, so if you are still stuck on counting [only CFA]PAC dollars"

Sorry, I disagree.  Each of the other association's PAC money is also transparent.  

Some franchisee associations have pooled their resources and the NAMG, the professional association running the CFA, is responsible for creating a large PAC fund to get Federal Franchising Legislation.

The numbers are very transparent, and function as a barameter of success and interest.

What any objective observer would conclude is that after 5 years of organizing by the NAMG there is relatively little interest in funding Franchise Legislation at the Federal level.  

You might not like that observation, but that is how most people are going to decide whether the Bill of Rights is going anywhere or not - by the size of the PAC fund dedicated to it.

Federal bill?

The CFA is sponsoring federal legislation? What bill? Didn't know about this. Where?

Let me know so I can send my money.

"Most people" don't accomplish anything

Observe away, Michael.
CFA members have actually gotten a state law passed, are on the brink of another and nearly succeeded in moving a law in California.

Where were other groups?

What are they responsible for? How do we measure how much they have accomplished?

Raising Funds

Guest states: "CFA members have actually gotten a state law passed, are on the brink of another and nearly succeeded in moving a law in California."

Good, then it will be easier to build off these successes to raise more PAC money - won't it.

Spoken like a true outsider

It's a good thing that you aren't an American lobbyist, Mr. Webster.

You seem to mean well, but your "advice" is based on something other than how things get done in US politics.

Webster thinks he knows more than he does.

He is his biggest fan. I would suggest he start a Fanpage and like himself.

Still knows more than you

Even though I disagree with him from time to time.

Knows more about franchisee rights?

Please list your and his accomplishments on behalf of franchisees other than yourself, and include the money you've spent out of pocket to do it (specifically excluding fees for service that you have pocketed).


Thanks for the Support

Thanks for the support GB.  But there is little point in conversing with these crickets.  They are unhappy franchisees and proud of it!

Public criticism is easy, but can you do the hard stuff?

Remember this:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming..."

From Theodore Roosevelt's speech "Citizenship in a Republic"

Competitor doesn't like competition

The problem is that Mr. Webster is hardly an objective observer. He is head of a competitor association of the Coalition of Franchisee Association. He also has no experience in legislation. His observations should be taken in this area with extreme caution.


Guest wrongly opines: "He is head of a competitor association of the Coalition of Franchisee Association"

No, the IAFD is not in competition with the CFA, we are not even in the same business. Some but not all of our customers as some of the franchisee associations in the CFA. The business of the CFA is run by the NAMG, the professional association company. The NAMG has focussed on selling healthcare programs to franchisees and managing their associations.

The IAFD is a for profit business selling services to franchisees which the franchisor wants the franchisee to have but cannot require that the franchisee buy it by contract. We are monetizing the vicarious liability dilemma and empowering franchisees.

The IAFD is not a member based non-profit association. Nor is it incorporated, it is an LLC. This means that it doesn't have a distinct entity apart from the members who formed the LLC.

Our platform is entirely agnostic with respect to franchise advocacy. For example, currently Tom Pitegoff is using the platform to stump for a change to the New York franchise lawyer to make it more franchisor friendly. Think of the platform as the Switzerland of Franchising: a platform for fierce advocates, but not a fierce advocate platform.

My comment above

On a new machine, which didn't log me in.  That is my comment above.  Some irony here.

Non-franchisee run associations

The problem with non-franchisee led associations for franchisees is that these small business owners haven&#39;t learned how to get along with their peers / competitors to accomplish things they both want. Criticizing competitors in public shows poor judgment for a head of a franchisee association.</p>

The CFA is run by Franchisees

The CFA Board of Directors are all franchisees. They pay a company to administer the CFA's day to day operations (they have their own businesses to administer and do not want to rely on free volunteer labor).

This adminstration company is NAMG. NAMG is wholly owned by the Burger King FRANCHISEES. The CFA is franchisees, top to bottm, left to right.

Now that we have that clear, can we please stop sniping amongst franchisee groups and get back to work? That just maked rouge, broken business model franchisors rub their hands together in glee as they seek more sheep to fleece.

Thank you.

The CFA is Franchisees

For the record, this is an incorrect statement, Mr. Webster: "the NAMG, the professional association running the CFA, is responsible for creating a large PAC fund to get Federal Franchising Legislation."

This is not NAMG's job for the CFA Board.

How much $$ was used for regulation in Ontario?

How much funding did it take to push the Arthur Wishart Act that regulates franchising in Ontario? I'm assuming nothing gets done without money.

Does anyone know who sponsored it and how many millions they had to use to buy off lawmakers?

Ask Les Stewart

Ask Les Stewart about the Wishart Act.  Or better ask Jeff Lafler, who is the current executive director of National Bread Franchisee Association.

How much money did Ontario franchisees pay?

They aren't here. You are. So how much do you think Mr. Stewart, Mr. Lafler and other groups had to spend in parliament to get Ontario's franchising law passed?