Will Seattle’s New $15 Minimum Wage Unite the Franchise Industry?

A recent vote by the Seattle City Council to increase the minimum wage to $15 has brought heated responses from various members of the franchise community. On June 2 the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to increase the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour. This means Seattle will have the highest minimum wage among the largest cities in the United States. The $15 wage increase will be phased in over three to seven years with businesses with fewer than 500 employees given seven years to reach the $15 wage and larger businesses and franchisees three years. Those that provide health insurance to   employees will have four years to comply.  

The legislation failed to recognize individual franchisees as small businesses and revealed an anti-franchise bias from at least one member, Socialist City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. Her post on Twitter said: “Enough with the blame game! Organize, go to corporate headquarters and renegotiate your rents.” “Subways (franchises) are not your corner mom and pop deli. Furthermore, even if it was, the reality is corporations are calling the shots. Why should we feed that model?” asked Sawant. In response to the inclusion of franchisees as small businesses the International Franchise Association has stated that they intend to file a Federal lawsuit against the Seattle City Council. Attorneys feel the ordinance violates the commerce and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. “The fundamental legal problems with the Seattle ordinance are the fact of discrimination and the refusal to treat all small businesses the same,” said attorney Paul Clement.

Dana Rebik of Q13 FOX News reported that Chuck Stempler, who owns an Alpha Graphics store in Queen Anne, is one of 600 franchisees planning to file a federal lawsuit, through the International Franchise Association. Matt Hollek a Subway franchisee has eight employees and his franchise is considered a large business under Seattle’s new minimum wage law. “He has only three years to phase in $15 an hour versus seven years for ‘small’ businesses with fewer than 500 employees. He added that he’ll have to raise prices up to $1 per sandwich and scale back health care benefits for his workers.”
The Franchise King, Joel Libava wrote an open letter to Seattle Mayor Murray that brought the Seattle franchisee issue into focus. Joel did a good job in capturing the essence of why individual franchisees should not be classified as large businesses. In speaking to several representatives of franchisee associations I found that there is unanimity regarding the Seattle City Council’s action pertaining to the misclassification of individual franchisees as large businesses.

Related to the minimum wage issue in Seattle is the justification used to group franchisees and franchisors into a single entity. Namely, those franchisors exert such strong control over their franchisees that this is akin to an employer employee relationship. In an article by franchise attorney James Mulcahy “Franchisors Wince as Some Courts Re-Label Franchisees as Employees Franchisors Look to State Legislatures”  Mulcahy reports on some recent rulings regarding this issue and how franchising may best combat anticipated challenges to the employer employee distinction between franchisors and their franchisees.

 As the franchise industry continues to come under pressure from unions and politicians regarding the minimum wage issue these groups will look for additional weapons to use in their fight. We can expect the franchise industry to unite in order to avoid a repeat of what has taken place in Seattle.

Profile picture for user Ed Teixeira

Comments

CFA

The IFA filed today, with five additional franchisee plaintiff's, an action against the City of Seattle. But the association that claims to represent the interest of franchisees, the CFA, or any of the other franchisee associations, did not participate in this lawsuit along with the IFA. That is simply amazing.

The IFA alone is carrying the heavy weight in protecting franchisees from the actions of the City of Seattle. I think the inaction by the CFA and their member franchisee associations clearly answers your question. They did not even bother to attend the hearings or anything. NOt a word in protest even. Can anyone answer why?

CFA

There could be some apprehension on the part of the franchisee side since they could be picketed and protested by the organized groups including the SEIU. Imagine a Subway franchisee being picketed by a large group. I wouldn't judge the CFA or franchisees too harshly. There are some that joined in the IFA action.which is not just symbolic.The CFA participated along with the IFA in the recent Connecticut action which was successful. 

Re: CFA

Is SEIU going to picket CFA headquarters? Come on. The CFA was not at risk. And what is the greater risk, being picketed or having the city put you out of business.

It just cant be acceptable for CFA and the other franchisee associations to claim to represent the interests of franchisees and then, in something like Seattle which represents an immediate threat to franchisee's businesses, hide behind the IFA's skirts. As for Connecticut, I heard the the big support of the CFA was a letter. Wow! Really got their hands dirty on that one.

To paraphrase Martin Niemoller, First they came for the franchisees in Seattle - and I did not respond because I had no locations in Seattle. Then they came for the franchisees in Chicago - and I did not respond because I had no locations in Chicago. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

What do you know?

The CFA has been working actively and closely with the IFA on Seattle and in Connecticut.

Suing someone isn't the only way to get what you want.

Seriously?

I read the IFA's complaint in the case in Seattle. Did I somehow miss CFA in the document? I saw the names of the 5 franchisee plaintiffs. Where exactly is that close relationship. How exactly is the CFA doing something in Seattle?

Give it a rest. CFA did nothing and is doing nothing for its franchisee members in Seattle.

Seriously

You who posts without identifying yourself, think you know it all. However, you don't.

Re: Seriously

Ed

Do you see the CFA on the IFA lawsuit as a plaintiff? Can you show me some interviews in Seattle with a CFA representative on TV or in the press? Did CFA have any lobbyist working the city counsel in Seattle? Are they contributing to the litigation costs in some way? Providing any assistance to the five franchisees?

What do you know that the rest of those following the case don't.

Enlighten us. Exactly what do you think the CFA did in Seattle? I read the local papers and watch the local TV. Did I miss something?

Re: Re: Seriously

Ed

Just did a Google search - nothing.

Just went to their web site - nothing - not even a press release.

Re: Re: Re: Seriously

Ed

Every mention by CFA on the issue on their web site. Show me a quote in any one of these articles please.

June 12, 2014
Lawmakers Reach Compromise On Minimum Wage Hike

WBUR

June 12, 2014
Lawsuit challenges Seattle's $15 minimum wage

KATU

June 11, 2014
Franchise owners file federal lawsuit over $15 minimum wage

KING5.com

June 11, 2014
Franchise trade group files suit against Seattle's $15 minimum wage law

Q13 FOX

June 11, 2014
Seattle's Minimum Wage Hike Is Already Bringing Extra Charges

VICE News

June 11, 2014
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal lawsuit filed Wednesday challenges Seattle's ...

CBS Local

June 11, 2014
Berkeley moves toward a $12.53 minimum wage by 2016

Contra Costa Times

June 11, 2014
San Francisco Voters to Decide on $15 Minimum Wage

ABC News

June 11, 2014
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee Proposes To Raise Minimum Wage To $15 An ...

CBS Local

June 11, 2014
​Who actually earns the minimum wage?

CBS News

Paul Steinberg writing and complaining again about CFA

Paul: as you have been told before, you know nothing. You have no reasonable basis for any of these gripes.

You are not much of a political operations observer, are you?

Re: Paul

explain how this political observation works? You do nothing but claim you are working behind the scene? Please!!!!!!! Not a mention on their web site even. You can't get much more behind the scene than that. Not even a public position? Just nothing.

Nothing

You mean like what you are doing?
Bwahahahahaha

Re: nothing

I never claimed to head a nationwide association to protect the interest of franchisees. CFA makes that claim. Can you be such an ideologue that you don't see their hypocracy?

Teixeira claims they are doing something. But nothing on their web site, nothing in the press, nothing in the media, nothing on Google. Nothing.

Franchisees will go out of business and CFA does absolutely nothing. So take your bwawawawa and maybe grow up.

Nothing

Take your armchair bloviatimb and do something.
Oh, you won't. That's what I thought.

What is it you claim that permits you to criticize anything that anyone else claims? Did you even get out of your pajamas today? I doubt it.

Wipe the Doritos stains off of your t shirt, take a shower and at least write a check to help so,done or pipe down and let the adults do their thing.

Pathetic

You deserve then what you get. Failed franchised businesses. Next time someone mentions equity extraction remember to mention CFA as not caring about equity destruction.

Remember to mention you

Or, as Is appropriate, have history forget you long before you are dead for the zero accomplishments that you have racked up.

Seattle is about unconstitutional, discriminatory unfairness, not franchise equity extraction. Seattle wants to extract ALL equity from everyone- it just gets started on franchises a little earlier than every other business.

But then again, the world viewed from your couch and the pajama- cam has a picture that no one else can see.

Zero accomplishments that you have racked up

You fund raise by claiming someone else's work as your own effort. History is forgetting you already and the buzzards are circling your pajama-cam,

Nothing

Take your armchair bloviatimb and do something.
Oh, you won't. That's what I thought.

What is it you claim that permits you to criticize anything that anyone else claims? Did you even get out of your pajamas today? I doubt it.

Wipe the Doritos stains off of your t shirt, take a shower and at least write a check to help so,done or pipe down and let the adults do their thing.

The real Paul Steinberg

I did not write any of the comments, so kindly do not attribute any of those posts to me.

For the record, I have previously said that there is an equal protection issue with this type of legislation.

The wisdom of minimum wage legislation is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that all of us should be equal before the law.

The Seattle legislation is wrong because it violates that core principle.

Whoever is in opposition to such law has my support-- be that the IFA, the CFA, or the XYZ.

And even if I was going to post snarky anonymous gripes, I know how to use the plural possessive ;)

Paul, It is not open for

Paul,

It is not open for debate - we are all not equal in the eyes of the law.
We now have hate crimes, which means under the Obama/Holder reign of terror that while whites can have additional penalties brought against them for victimizing a minority the converse is not true. Tea party members do not have the same right to petition and address their Government as liberal entities. Whites and Asians are discriminated against in academic admission standards. Civil hiring positions often discriminant against majority applicants. Men are oppressed in matters of divorce in many states etc...Homosexuals now have special rights etc, etc.

Connecticut

Connecticut is online.

The only franchise testimony was by the IFA.

IFA did not object to wage rates and did not object to disparate treatment. There were other business groups who did.

The IFA criticism was on the basis that the franchisor should not be held responsible for franchiser employment practices.

re: Connecticut

Meant to say not responsible for franchisee practices.

Connecitucut bill was going nowhere. Neither is Seattle law

Why should anyone-especially VOLUNTEERS- waste their resources fighting bogus, mush headed claptrap that is clearly unconstitutional?

CT was dead in the water. Anyone who had any degree of knowledge knew that it didn't have the votes to move beyond where it was, never mind actually become a law. The legislature's OWN counsel opined that it should die. That didn't stop the information challenged, desperate agenda driven loony internet troll from demanding that CFA, IFA, ABCDEFG spend all of their time and money fighting it.

Seattle has the same constitutional defects (the franchise discrimination portion) and at least portions will be struck down. How many "me too" plaintiffs will it require for that tohapen? Zero. You don't get brownie litigation points for adding parties to a lawsuit. You only need one to sue and one the be sued. Of course, internet trolls lack this fine point of basic knowledge.

I know that there are never enough of SOMEONE ELSE'S resources that internet trolls can demand be spent. Ludicrous.

Connecitucut bill was going nowhere. Neither is Seattle law

Why should anyone-especially VOLUNTEERS- waste their resources fighting bogus, mush headed claptrap that is clearly unconstitutional?

CT was dead in the water. Anyone who had any degree of knowledge knew that it didn't have the votes to move beyond where it was, never mind actually become a law. The legislature's OWN counsel opined that it should die. That didn't stop the information challenged, desperate agenda driven loony internet troll from demanding that CFA, IFA, ABCDEFG spend all of their time and money fighting it.

Seattle has the same constitutional defects (the franchise discrimination portion) and at least portions will be struck down. How many "me too" plaintiffs will it require for that tohapen? Zero. You don't get brownie litigation points for adding parties to a lawsuit. You only need one to sue and one the be sued. Of course, internet trolls lack this fine point of basic knowledge.

I know that there are never enough of SOMEONE ELSE'S resources that internet trolls can demand be spent. Ludicrous.

Just say "Thank You"

Comment re CT was merely stating a fact.

IFA was in CT and is in Seattle. Why can't you just say "Thank You" to the people who are working on your behalf?

Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and support the IFA.

Just say nothing

Who said that CFA and IFA aren't already working together?

You are clearly away out of the loop. Maybe you should just stay there and not say anything.

Credit where it is due

Franchisees have blasted the IFA for years and when the IFA swoops in to save their butts nobody wants to give credit where it is due.

Nobody is asking you to join the IFA but don't bite the hand that is paying your lawyers and lobbyists.

http://www.franchise.org/zeemembership.aspx

Credit is not due to the IFA.

My God will you please stop. The IFA is NOT doing this for franchisees, they are doing it for themselves. The franchisors are fully aware that their "business partners", the franchisees, are not making any money and will go out of business that much quicker if the minimum wage is raised to these levels. Most franchisees are teetering on the edge of closing anyway and this would be the final straw.

Imagine the public relations nightmare for franchising if franchises started closing left and right because of this wage increase. The truth would finally come out about just how close to the brink of bankruptcy these "business models" are on a daily basis.

The IFA is doing this to prevent a national embarrassment. Saving the franchise is what is at stake . . . saving the franchisee just happens to be an unintended consequence.

Just stand a Seid

Maybe you should just not say anything and let Michael Seid handle this.

Michael Seid's money

Hope he has a sense of humour since his dues are being used to pay for it. Those zees should pay their dues.

Re: Just stand a Seid

Quite a catchy phrase!  I may use it in the future.  Thanks.

I had heard from one of my colleagues that my name had come up on Bluemaumau and I thought I would see.  Not sure why I would be mentioned in postings about any legislative matter since last I read on BMM I have no involvement when it comes to issues like this.

This is an interesting thread and I thought it might be useful to clear up some comments that have been made and try to clear up any misconceptions.

Regarding Seattle, yes the IFA has filed a federal law suit on Constitutional grounds and yes my dues as a supplier and a franchisor, as are the dues of all the other supplier, franchisor and franchisee members are being use to pay what is an astronomical potential litigation cost.  But it is worth the investment and the effort.

Not only is Matt Haller involved in Seattle but so is Dean Heyl, Steve Caldeira (with numerous interviews in the press and on TV) as are many others on the IFA staff.  Each member of the IFA staff is doing an outstanding job and working amazingly hard on this effort.  There are also numerous franchisor, franchisee and supplier members of the IFA actively involved.  I can assure you that none of us volunteers think we are wasting our time or our personal resources on this important issue or on any of the other important issues we have been addressing.  There is a deep well of commitment from the association, its staff and the members against the City of Seattle’s discrimination against franchisees.

To the visitor who thinks just because a bill may be unconstitutional it will never become law. In both Connecticut and Seattle we heard from many legislators who took the position, even knowing the constitutional challenges, that they were fine “letting the courts figure it out”.  Hell the proposed bill in Maine was clearly unconstitutional and it passed in their house.  Just because something is unconstitutional means absolutely nothing in these battles and being unconstitutional does not deter legislators from passing bills.  Every year is either an election year or if not, it's a fund raising year.  Legislators are always playing to either their base of voters or their donors.  Your viewpoints are just a tad naive.  Given legislative reality, you fight as hard as you can to gain their support and when it does not happen, then the long haul and expensive fight in the courts need to take place.  Might have been nice to have more local and national based franchisee support in Seattle during the debate.  I understand on the local front but not on the national level since SEIU is not the nicest group of players to come up against if you are a franchisee in Seattle.

Having franchisees as plaintiffs on the lawsuit standing side by side with the IFA is quite important and many folks involved in these matters would consider it essential.  Given SEIU and how they behaved during the hearings and during the debate, the five franchisee plaintiffs in the lawsuit with the IFA against the City of Seattle deserve your thanks.  These are clearly some of the most committed individuals you will meet and brave is an understatement for their standing up for all franchisees.

Regarding the CFA.  Yes they had some involvement in Connecticut, but Ed, please give it a bit of a break in expanding what they did.  In Seattle they signed a letter in opposition to the bill.  But, I am both surprised and disappointed that the CFA hasn’t taken a more active role in fighting this attack on the people they allegedly are supposed to protect.  Franchisees should be glad the IFA and its members are taking on this fight.  The members of the IFA think it is important to protect franchisees and we are committed to winning in Seattle.  If Keith wants to take me to task for saying his organization is not doing enough that is fine.  Maybe CFA will then feel the obligation and maybe the pressure to do more.

To the visitors that stood up for the IFA on this site and offered their thanks, as a member of the IFA, thank you.  You may not be asking folks to join the IFA but I will.  Seattle is a real threat to the franchisees in Seattle and could blossom into a major threat elsewhere.  We can always use your support.  The IFA board voted unanimously and with real vocal support for funding this lawsuit.  To the cynic who thinks that the IFA is only out to protect its franchisor members, you are clearly misinformed. The bottom line is that the IFA is out to protect franchising.  If you ever decide to attend a conference or a meeting of the IFA or maybe sit in on one of its committee or board meetings you would know that this includes both franchisees and franchisors, on every issue.  Just go to the IFA’s web site and read the information about the association, articles that are published, educational programs that are posted and you might just learn how wrong you are.

And before I see the nonsense posts on BMM about my supposed position on issues regarding franchising, which are generally wrong, go read some of the articles I have written and posted to the franchisee section of the franchises.about.com web site MSA is managing and then make your comments.  You will also find articles posted by Richard Rosen and Michael Dady and others, all committed franchisor centric folks of course.  Many of the other franchisee advocate professionals I may have professional disagreements with on many issues, but count as friends, I have also invited to contribute articles and they are doing so.  

Finally, with a very sad heart, I would like to let you know that some old and dear friends, Therese Thilgen and Gary Gardner, lost their son Tim, a 25 year old fine young man, with an amazing future, in a car accident this week.  Therese and Gary are the founders of Franchise-Update Media and those of us who attend their conferences and who are their friends and have seen Timmy grow up are devastated.  He will be sorely missed and with great affection my best wishes and condolences go out to Therese and Gary and to all of us who had the great joy of knowing him. 

Re: Just stand a Seid

Quite a catchy phrase!  I may use it in the future.  Thanks.

I had heard from one of my colleagues that my name had come up on Bluemaumau and I thought I would see.  Not sure why I would be mentioned in postings about any legislative matter since last I read on BMM I have no involvement when it comes to issues like this.

This is an interesting thread and I thought it might be useful to clear up some comments that have been made and try to clear up any misconceptions.

Regarding Seattle, yes the IFA has filed a federal law suit on Constitutional grounds and yes my dues as a supplier and a franchisor, as are the dues of all the other supplier, franchisor and franchisee members are being use to pay what is an astronomical potential litigation cost.  But it is worth the investment and the effort.

Not only is Matt Haller involved in Seattle but so is Dean Heyl, Steve Caldeira (with numerous interviews in the press and on TV) as are many others on the IFA staff.  Each member of the IFA staff is doing an outstanding job and working amazingly hard on this effort.  There are also numerous franchisor, franchisee and supplier members of the IFA actively involved.  I can assure you that none of us volunteers think we are wasting our time or our personal resources on this important issue or on any of the other important issues we have been addressing.  There is a deep well of commitment from the association, its staff and the members against the City of Seattle’s discrimination against franchisees.

To the visitor who thinks just because a bill may be unconstitutional it will never become law. In both Connecticut and Seattle we heard from many legislators who took the position, even knowing the constitutional challenges, that they were fine “letting the courts figure it out”.  Hell the proposed bill in Maine was clearly unconstitutional and it passed in their house.  Just because something is unconstitutional means absolutely nothing in these battles and being unconstitutional does not deter legislators from passing bills.  Every year is either an election year or if not, it's a fund raising year.  Legislators are always playing to either their base of voters or their donors.  Your viewpoints are just a tad naive.  Given legislative reality, you fight as hard as you can to gain their support and when it does not happen, then the long haul and expensive fight in the courts need to take place.  Might have been nice to have more local and national based franchisee support in Seattle during the debate.  I understand on the local front but not on the national level since SEIU is not the nicest group of players to come up against if you are a franchisee in Seattle.

Having franchisees as plaintiffs on the lawsuit standing side by side with the IFA is quite important and many folks involved in these matters would consider it essential.  Given SEIU and how they behaved during the hearings and during the debate, the five franchisee plaintiffs in the lawsuit with the IFA against the City of Seattle deserve your thanks.  These are clearly some of the most committed individuals you will meet and brave is an understatement for their standing up for all franchisees.

Regarding the CFA.  Yes they had some involvement in Connecticut, but Ed, please give it a bit of a break in expanding what they did.  In Seattle they signed a letter in opposition to the bill.  But, I am both surprised and disappointed that the CFA hasn’t taken a more active role in fighting this attack on the people they allegedly are supposed to protect.  Franchisees should be glad the IFA and its members are taking on this fight.  The members of the IFA think it is important to protect franchisees and we are committed to winning in Seattle.  If Keith wants to take me to task for saying his organization is not doing enough that is fine.  Maybe CFA will then feel the obligation and maybe the pressure to do more.

To the visitors that stood up for the IFA on this site and offered their thanks, as a member of the IFA, thank you.  You may not be asking folks to join the IFA but I will.  Seattle is a real threat to the franchisees in Seattle and could blossom into a major threat elsewhere.  We can always use your support.  The IFA board voted unanimously and with real vocal support for funding this lawsuit.  To the cynic who thinks that the IFA is only out to protect its franchisor members, you are clearly misinformed. The bottom line is that the IFA is out to protect franchising.  If you ever decide to attend a conference or a meeting of the IFA or maybe sit in on one of its committee or board meetings you would know that this includes both franchisees and franchisors, on every issue.  Just go to the IFA’s web site and read the information about the association, articles that are published, educational programs that are posted and you might just learn how wrong you are.

And before I see the nonsense posts on BMM about my supposed position on issues regarding franchising, which are generally wrong, go read some of the articles I have written and posted to the franchisee section of the franchises.about.com web site MSA is managing and then make your comments.  You will also find articles posted by Richard Rosen and Michael Dady and others, all committed franchisor centric folks of course.  Many of the other franchisee advocate professionals I may have professional disagreements with on many issues, but count as friends, I have also invited to contribute articles and they are doing so.  

Finally, with a very sad heart, I would like to let you know that some old and dear friends, Therese Thilgen and Gary Gardner, lost their son Tim, a 25 year old fine young man, with an amazing future, in a car accident this week.  Therese and Gary are the founders of Franchise-Update Media and those of us who attend their conferences and who are their friends and have seen Timmy grow up are devastated.  He will be sorely missed and with great affection my best wishes and condolences go out to Therese and Gary and to all of us who had the great joy of knowing him. 

Only one Seid to Michael's arguments - franchisees be damned

Michael, the only time the IFA fights for franchisees is when it happens to fall in line with the direct interests of franchisors.

Look at any and all legislative fights the IFA has taken on. If the proposed legislation falls in favor of the franchisee but against the franchisor (where do I begin on that one? mandatory binding arbitration, cure times, full financial disclosure, sale of franchise . . . I could go on - and on) the IFA falls directly on the side of the franchisor.

The IFA cannot serve the interests of both masters when each side has conflicting interests - and in most cases franchisee/franchisor interests conflict. Its a nice try Michael but we both know what Seid you're on.

IFA Seattle

IFA will lose this battle.

[And I want Seattle to fail at raising the minimum wage to $15]

Because they are inept and don't understand the issue. They do not have IFA member support. If they cannot get McDonald's, BK, YUM brands to publicly get behind their effort they have already lost. Oh and what about Panera?

Having people privately say we are with you is meaningless.

The feckless Lehr, Rocchio, Haller et al measure their effectiveness by how many frequent flyer miles they collect and by how many great premium steakhouses they can discover in their travels.

Steve Caldeira should have Rocchio start IFA Travel & Restaurant Review Column in the IFA Smartbrief.

Proof is that go to any State Capital and ask members of the legislature who their IFA contact is they will ask "IFA who" or do you mean the Inshore Fishing Association.

IFA staffers are like government bureaucrats or royalty whose only interest to keep their job, their title, get a big paycheck and do as little work as possible.

IFA Seattle

IFA will lose this battle.

[And I want Seattle to fail at raising the minimum wage to $15]

Because they are inept and don't understand the issue. They do not have IFA member support. If they cannot get McDonald's, BK, YUM brands to publicly get behind their effort they have already lost. Oh and what about Panera?

Having people privately say we are with you is meaningless.

The feckless Lehr, Rocchio, Haller et al measure their effectiveness by how many frequent flyer miles they collect and by how many great premium steakhouses they can discover in their travels.

Steve Caldeira should have Rocchio start IFA Travel & Restaurant Review Column in the IFA Smartbrief.

Proof is that go to any State Capital and ask members of the legislature who their IFA contact is they will ask "IFA who" or do you mean the Inshore Fishing Association.

IFA staffers are like government bureaucrats or royalty whose only interest to keep their job, their title, get a big paycheck and do as little work as possible.

Just stand a Seid

Michael, I would hope that your comments could convince some of the readers how much the IFA does to promote and protect the industry. Unfortunately as long as people are allowed to post as Visitor there will continue to be the so called "bomb tossers" who will make outlandish comments. The intent of my column was to provide an opinion on the current minimum wage challenges facing the franchise industry and perhaps rouse some in the industry to action. For the uninformed, Seattle is only the beginning of the battle with a number of large cities to follow. 

Memo to Ed

The IFA was created as a radical right wing group of attorneys to create the most stringent explotative business model possible to create contract rights and revenue streams for themselves and thrir clients. IFA is in Seattle for one issue and to provide photo ops for Steve Caldeira.

As for Mike Seid, his opinions are like so much hot air.

Re: Just stand a Seid

Ed, do you really think the Lehr, Rocchio and Haller know anything?

ed

Ha ha ha you kill me with your boo boo your a visitor and I am using a fake picture with a fake name and I am really a franchisor suck up trying to bluff people In to my twisted corruption protection so the franchisors and their lawyers can continue to reap the benefits of ripping off the working public. Get a life and quit blogging in your pajamas. And please get a job and leave this site for a day or two. There is real stories to be told. Rather than your disdain for the working class.

Re: Franchisees be damned and other nonsense

BTW – if BMM would possibly not pull down this post, as they did with my last one, or at least let me know why they pulled it down, I would appreciate the heads up.

 

Visitor, if you run out of ways to use the name Seid (side) in a sentence, let me know, I can give you some ideas – I made up most of them.   I used to spell my name on some game jerseys as Side and school reporters used to write about me running down the Seid lines.  Never got tired of reading that I kicked someone’s backSeid in some sport and when I was in the military I had a nameplate with the name Side made up to wear on my Khakis. Wore it to a promotion once and almost did not get my next rank.  If you look for the derivation of the name, one of the more obscure ones is from the German for Beer Stein – my dad give me that tidbit of information.  Used to make the pledges in my fraternity present me with Seids as part of the hazing.  Built up a pretty good collection before I graduated.  As you can see, I am very sensitive to the use of Seid instead of side.  Been having fun with it since around the second or third grade actually – guess I just like childish humor.  Always though felt sorry for the kids who had last names like Fuchs.  Close friend in college had that name and he became a gynecologist.  Go figure.

 

You are either obtuse or incredibly misinformed.  Nicest way I can think of describing your posts.  But as a Seid benefit of interesting me in this thread, let me respond to you.

 

The IFA was not formed by some right wing lawyers.  It was formed over a kitchen table by some franchisor business men 50 years ago.  Who was there and why they formed the association has varied over the years but there is likely a relatively good version on the internet or on the IFA web site if you are interested.  BTW – I think Ed and I would describe ourselves as part of the working class.  Odd comment.

 

The IFA cannot serve the interest of both masters?  Interesting for a bumper sticker but amazingly off base.  Franchisors and franchisees have different viewpoints on many issues.  The franchisor naturally tends to focus on the macro of the business while the franchisee tends to focus on the micro of their business.  Can and does that lay the foundation for issues to arise?  Absolutely and that is one of the consideration in structuring and managing any licensing relationship.  It is also what makes the IFA such a vibrant, deliberative and inclusive association.

 

One of the Seid benefits of how the IFA is managed and structured is that it brings issues into open discussion, since franchisors and franchisees are represented by their own forums, and have representation on the committees, task forces and on the board of directors and do have divergent views.  The IFA is so worried about openly addressing the differences of opinion that it even has franchisees regularly elected to the chairs and serving as chairman of the association.  Several franchisees are also on the board and Aziz is the next franchisee scheduled to be chairman and the franchisee before that was Jack. Two really right wing franchisors and both concerned about their franchises for sure.  (-:

 

It is a collaborative body.  Three of the five members of the team that worked on drafting the IFA’s Guiding Principles were franchisees – and that is why it is such a compelling and practical document that the board of directors approved unanimously.  Besides, if you look at the makeup of the association’s leadership, you might notice that many franchisors are also franchisees or if you like it better, many franchisees are also franchisors.  It’s as common as suppliers like me also being franchisors and some members are all three.  Sorry but franchising has matured a bit from your simplistic view of how and why the association functions and the position it takes.

 

Lets look at the legislative positions of the association.  Seattle is a no-brainer.  In order to protect franchising for the benefit of everyone, the IFA needs to protect the franchisees in Seattle from this extremely discriminatory action against franchisees by the Seattle City Council.  On other issues, the consensus is that franchisors are required to protect their intellectual property for the benefit of all stakeholders, and as we argued in Maine, Massachusetts, RI, Philadelphia, now in California and elsewhere, consistent – sustainable – replication, is what franchisees desire most in a franchise system.  The IFA’s members, including franchisees, support the IFA’s position.  If they did not, you think they would remain as members?

 

Are there really bad franchisors?  Absolutely.  Are there some really bad franchisors in the IFA, without a doubt.  Glad they are members as most members attend educational programs and are trying to become better franchisors by doing so.  Most of our members though would fall into the great, good and trying to be better categories.  Sorry, the IFA likely will never be able to promise you a perfect industry that meets every one of your issues.  But it continually strives to improve its member’s performance.  I just might imagine that not every franchisee in a franchisee association is perfect also and would hope they are learning from the other franchisees in that association on how to improve their performance.

 

As it relates to the association’s position on the issues in the relationship law bills you mention, besides violating federal law and basic constitutional principles, overall those bills would harm the equity earned by the vast majority of franchisees.   Its one of the reasons I kept challenging Jim Coen to defend the clauses in Maine and was disappointed that he did not.  But Maine for instance, had it passed, would have substantially been reversed in court and I have little doubt of that. That is an expensive proposition as you are now seeing played out in Seattle.  Protecting the rights of franchisors and franchisees are central to how the members and leadership of the IFA look at every issue.  If you doubt that, just come to any committee or task force meeting or attend one of the association’s board meetings – most are open sessions. The meeting to discuss Seattle was such an open forum that we had non board members sitting at the tables participating in the discussion.  Lets just remember that the IFA is in its second decade of franchisee membership, which leads me to your comments about staff.

 

Paul Rocchio is primarily focused on membership.  Lehr in a leadership role as a SVP has a more expanded portfolio of responsibilities.  Neither is tasked with the legislative side of the association’s activities, other than everyone’s focus on franchise relations.  Your use of the term feckless when discussing these two executives is laughable on its face. First they have nothing to do with the subject under discussion and second, in the roles that they do have my only worry about them is that they are so talented, that some other association might try to steal them away from the IFA.  I would not worry too much about their food or travel allowance, its not excessive, trust me on that.  But thank you for worrying about how the IFA spends my dues and the rest of the members dues – I appreciate it.

 

As for Haller, Heyl, Farage, Cresanti and the rest of the very formative legislative team assembled by Caldeira, and the comments that are clearly pulled from your backSeid about them or how well regarded the IFA is in the state houses or on Capital Hill -  that does not even rise to the level of needing a response.  But as a Seid benefit I will respond.  I can just imagine how many State Capital you could find on a map, let alone the number of members of any legislature, including your local school board, that you have ever met and spoken to about the IFA.  The reality is amazingly different and I am being kind to you with that kind of softball.  As to Caldeira and his “photo ops”, those opportunities come about because the media respects him and the association and understands that he will provide them with clear and accurate information about every subject on franchising.  He does not need to look for photo ops, he has earned them and the media seeks him out for his positions on issues in franchising and on small business issues, not the other way around.  I guess you can say you gave me an easy pitch that I could punch down the Seidline – ok baseline but I was trying to fit Seid into the sentence for you. 

 

Does the staff at the IFA understand franchising.  While I have not checked recently I know that many of them have taken the required classes and have been awarded CFEs.  Their knowledge is broad and deep as it needs to be when working in a franchising association.  Don't know who you are and whether you are a CFE or not, so I can’t say whether or not, they have superior knowledge to you about franchising, but given some of your posts, I imagine that is a real possibility.  Yes, before you ask, in addition to my experience and knowledge as a professional in the industry and a very active social franchisor, I thought it was important that I also attend the CFE classes and earn my certification, something I was awarded the second year it was offered.  I also occasionally offer some classes for the CFE including some you might want to attend at this weeks IFE.

 

Lets address member support for the IFA’s legislative actions since you obviously don't have a clue on how any of this works.  The role of the association is to represent the industry.  Each and every franchisor that has a lobbying team is part of the discussion and decision-making process and support, but effective presentation of a message in these types of matters is best served with a solid and single voice.  Of course member’s lobbying teams participate.  The IFA even reached out to the CFA on Seattle, and you know from my prior post how much support that garnered.

 

You say you want to see the IFA lose and yet in the next sentence you want to see Seattle fail at raising the minimum wage.  Since the bill is now law, how exactly do you expect that to happen unless the IFA invests in making that happen?  And, if the IFA is fighting to make sure the decision of the City Council is reversed in the Court’s why would you want the IFA to fail anyway.  Do you somehow think that the failure of the IFA in Seattle is going to be a benefit somehow to franchisees, or waiting for the impact of the discriminatory impact on franchisees failing because they can’t compete is going to serve some usefulness to anyone.  Or, as I suppose, you just think that it will benefit the CFA or MFOA in future legislative issues.  That would be really strange reasoning.  You should be instead asking how you could be of assistance or even questioning where the CFA has been on these franchisee issues.  Or is the only important thing to you that regardless of the outcome and damage to franchisees, on any issue you think the IFA needs to lose.  I can assure you that most franchisees, even on state relationship law bills, support the IFA’s position simply because by protecting franchising, the IFA is protecting the equity of franchisees.

 

Finally, as to your thoughts that you think my positions are “hot air” or that you know what Seid Seid is on, you would not be playing around with my name or challenging my positions so strongly, or even mentioning my name at all if you actually believed that my viewpoints did not matter.  You would simply ignore my posts. 

 

I apologize to you that my viewpoints on issues are a bit complex, nuanced and outside of your apparently singular black and white focus on the issues and maybe even possibly your level of comprehension (that may be considered unfair and a Seid swipe). Please know that I do find many of your comments and others on BMM about my positions on issues off to the Seid, misrepresenting my views and therefore often amusing to me and others that know my positions on certain issues.  Try reading my articles before you make my Seids hurt again with laughter.

 

You are like a flat earther or a 9-11 conspiracy person.  You tend to have an opinion and do not want any facts to get in the way.  How sad for you.  I am sorry for what ever happened to whatever franchised business you owned or own.  Maybe Ed is right about not responding to visitor postings since you don't need to take any ownership for your positions personally.  I imagine you find some strength in not identifying who you are.  That is fine really and if that is the position on BMM those are the rules here.  But understand that anonymous postings or the use of pseudonyms instead of actual names is likely the reason that most professionals in franchising tend to look at some very good articles on this site only and don't respond to posts.  Its  like Playboy in a way - regardless of whether the pictures are entertaining, the articles can be informative whether or not you agree with the position of the authors and BMM can actually be a good source for some information.  But most professionals rarely if ever respond to posts or contribute because of the web site’s policy. 

 

Why do I bother?  I guess I am wound a bit differently and that I actually enjoy in an odd way the Seidbar discussions when they are addressed to me or about me or when they misrepresent the IFA’s position or attack some of their staff.  For me, its sort of like sitting in a comfortable Seidchair.  It does not take a lot of effort.  Since the challenge of responding is most often a relaxing extension of my Seidline as a writer and the posts are so easily addressed and put on the Seid when I have the time, or one of the teams I might be following is not playing, think of it as a Seid benefit.  But please, feel free to not respond to my post if you think they are simply hot air and my positions don't matter.  I will respond to yours from time to time, since as an anonymous visitor, you might actually be someone whose position I would want to influence.  You never know who is important and I would not want to miss such an opportunity.

 

If you are in NYC this week, come to one of the educational programs we are conducting at the IFE.  Ask some questions.  You don't even have to identify yourself.  You might even get to experience a different Seid of me than you thought and most assuredly, you can get an understanding of my views on a lot of subjects related to franchising.

Re: Franchisees be damned and other nonsense

BTW – if BMM would possibly not pull down this post, as they did with my last one, or at least let me know why they pulled it down, I would appreciate the heads up.

 

Visitor, if you run out of ways to use the name Seid (side) in a sentence, let me know, I can give you some ideas – I made up most of them.   I used to spell my name on some game jerseys as Side and school reporters used to write about me running down the Seid lines.  Never got tired of reading that I kicked someone’s backSeid in some sport and when I was in the military I had a nameplate with the name Side made up to wear on my Khakis. Wore it to a promotion once and almost did not get my next rank.  If you look for the derivation of the name, one of the more obscure ones is from the German for Beer Stein – my dad give me that tidbit of information.  Used to make the pledges in my fraternity present me with Seids as part of the hazing.  Built up a pretty good collection before I graduated.  As you can see, I am very sensitive to the use of Seid instead of side.  Been having fun with it since around the second or third grade actually – guess I just like childish humor.  Always though felt sorry for the kids who had last names like Fuchs.  Close friend in college had that name and he became a gynecologist.  Go figure.

 

You are either obtuse or incredibly misinformed.  Nicest way I can think of describing your posts.  But as a Seid benefit of interesting me in this thread, let me respond to you.

 

The IFA was not formed by some right wing lawyers.  It was formed over a kitchen table by some franchisor business men 50 years ago.  Who was there and why they formed the association has varied over the years but there is likely a relatively good version on the internet or on the IFA web site if you are interested.  BTW – I think Ed and I would describe ourselves as part of the working class.  Odd comment.

 

The IFA cannot serve the interest of both masters?  Interesting for a bumper sticker but amazingly off base.  Franchisors and franchisees have different viewpoints on many issues.  The franchisor naturally tends to focus on the macro of the business while the franchisee tends to focus on the micro of their business.  Can and does that lay the foundation for issues to arise?  Absolutely and that is one of the consideration in structuring and managing any licensing relationship.  It is also what makes the IFA such a vibrant, deliberative and inclusive association.

 

One of the Seid benefits of how the IFA is managed and structured is that it brings issues into open discussion, since franchisors and franchisees are represented by their own forums, and have representation on the committees, task forces and on the board of directors and do have divergent views.  The IFA is so worried about openly addressing the differences of opinion that it even has franchisees regularly elected to the chairs and serving as chairman of the association.  Several franchisees are also on the board and Aziz is the next franchisee scheduled to be chairman and the franchisee before that was Jack. Two really right wing franchisors and both concerned about their franchises for sure.  (-:

 

It is a collaborative body.  Three of the five members of the team that worked on drafting the IFA’s Guiding Principles were franchisees – and that is why it is such a compelling and practical document that the board of directors approved unanimously.  Besides, if you look at the makeup of the association’s leadership, you might notice that many franchisors are also franchisees or if you like it better, many franchisees are also franchisors.  It’s as common as suppliers like me also being franchisors and some members are all three.  Sorry but franchising has matured a bit from your simplistic view of how and why the association functions and the position it takes.

 

Lets look at the legislative positions of the association.  Seattle is a no-brainer.  In order to protect franchising for the benefit of everyone, the IFA needs to protect the franchisees in Seattle from this extremely discriminatory action against franchisees by the Seattle City Council.  On other issues, the consensus is that franchisors are required to protect their intellectual property for the benefit of all stakeholders, and as we argued in Maine, Massachusetts, RI, Philadelphia, now in California and elsewhere, consistent – sustainable – replication, is what franchisees desire most in a franchise system.  The IFA’s members, including franchisees, support the IFA’s position.  If they did not, you think they would remain as members?

 

Are there really bad franchisors?  Absolutely.  Are there some really bad franchisors in the IFA, without a doubt.  Glad they are members as most members attend educational programs and are trying to become better franchisors by doing so.  Most of our members though would fall into the great, good and trying to be better categories.  Sorry, the IFA likely will never be able to promise you a perfect industry that meets every one of your issues.  But it continually strives to improve its member’s performance.  I just might imagine that not every franchisee in a franchisee association is perfect also and would hope they are learning from the other franchisees in that association on how to improve their performance.

 

As it relates to the association’s position on the issues in the relationship law bills you mention, besides violating federal law and basic constitutional principles, overall those bills would harm the equity earned by the vast majority of franchisees.   Its one of the reasons I kept challenging Jim Coen to defend the clauses in Maine and was disappointed that he did not.  But Maine for instance, had it passed, would have substantially been reversed in court and I have little doubt of that. That is an expensive proposition as you are now seeing played out in Seattle.  Protecting the rights of franchisors and franchisees are central to how the members and leadership of the IFA look at every issue.  If you doubt that, just come to any committee or task force meeting or attend one of the association’s board meetings – most are open sessions. The meeting to discuss Seattle was such an open forum that we had non board members sitting at the tables participating in the discussion.  Lets just remember that the IFA is in its second decade of franchisee membership, which leads me to your comments about staff.

 

Paul Rocchio is primarily focused on membership.  Lehr in a leadership role as a SVP has a more expanded portfolio of responsibilities.  Neither is tasked with the legislative side of the association’s activities, other than everyone’s focus on franchise relations.  Your use of the term feckless when discussing these two executives is laughable on its face. First they have nothing to do with the subject under discussion and second, in the roles that they do have my only worry about them is that they are so talented, that some other association might try to steal them away from the IFA.  I would not worry too much about their food or travel allowance, its not excessive, trust me on that.  But thank you for worrying about how the IFA spends my dues and the rest of the members dues – I appreciate it.

 

As for Haller, Heyl, Farage, Cresanti and the rest of the very formative legislative team assembled by Caldeira, and the comments that are clearly pulled from your backSeid about them or how well regarded the IFA is in the state houses or on Capital Hill -  that does not even rise to the level of needing a response.  But as a Seid benefit I will respond.  I can just imagine how many State Capital you could find on a map, let alone the number of members of any legislature, including your local school board, that you have ever met and spoken to about the IFA.  The reality is amazingly different and I am being kind to you with that kind of softball.  As to Caldeira and his “photo ops”, those opportunities come about because the media respects him and the association and understands that he will provide them with clear and accurate information about every subject on franchising.  He does not need to look for photo ops, he has earned them and the media seeks him out for his positions on issues in franchising and on small business issues, not the other way around.  I guess you can say you gave me an easy pitch that I could punch down the Seidline – ok baseline but I was trying to fit Seid into the sentence for you. 

 

Does the staff at the IFA understand franchising.  While I have not checked recently I know that many of them have taken the required classes and have been awarded CFEs.  Their knowledge is broad and deep as it needs to be when working in a franchising association.  Don't know who you are and whether you are a CFE or not, so I can’t say whether or not, they have superior knowledge to you about franchising, but given some of your posts, I imagine that is a real possibility.  Yes, before you ask, in addition to my experience and knowledge as a professional in the industry and a very active social franchisor, I thought it was important that I also attend the CFE classes and earn my certification, something I was awarded the second year it was offered.  I also occasionally offer some classes for the CFE including some you might want to attend at this weeks IFE.

 

Lets address member support for the IFA’s legislative actions since you obviously don't have a clue on how any of this works.  The role of the association is to represent the industry.  Each and every franchisor that has a lobbying team is part of the discussion and decision-making process and support, but effective presentation of a message in these types of matters is best served with a solid and single voice.  Of course member’s lobbying teams participate.  The IFA even reached out to the CFA on Seattle, and you know from my prior post how much support that garnered.

 

You say you want to see the IFA lose and yet in the next sentence you want to see Seattle fail at raising the minimum wage.  Since the bill is now law, how exactly do you expect that to happen unless the IFA invests in making that happen?  And, if the IFA is fighting to make sure the decision of the City Council is reversed in the Court’s why would you want the IFA to fail anyway.  Do you somehow think that the failure of the IFA in Seattle is going to be a benefit somehow to franchisees, or waiting for the impact of the discriminatory impact on franchisees failing because they can’t compete is going to serve some usefulness to anyone.  Or, as I suppose, you just think that it will benefit the CFA or MFOA in future legislative issues.  That would be really strange reasoning.  You should be instead asking how you could be of assistance or even questioning where the CFA has been on these franchisee issues.  Or is the only important thing to you that regardless of the outcome and damage to franchisees, on any issue you think the IFA needs to lose.  I can assure you that most franchisees, even on state relationship law bills, support the IFA’s position simply because by protecting franchising, the IFA is protecting the equity of franchisees.

 

Finally, as to your thoughts that you think my positions are “hot air” or that you know what Seid Seid is on, you would not be playing around with my name or challenging my positions so strongly, or even mentioning my name at all if you actually believed that my viewpoints did not matter.  You would simply ignore my posts. 

 

I apologize to you that my viewpoints on issues are a bit complex, nuanced and outside of your apparently singular black and white focus on the issues and maybe even possibly your level of comprehension (that may be considered unfair and a Seid swipe). Please know that I do find many of your comments and others on BMM about my positions on issues off to the Seid, misrepresenting my views and therefore often amusing to me and others that know my positions on certain issues.  Try reading my articles before you make my Seids hurt again with laughter.

 

You are like a flat earther or a 9-11 conspiracy person.  You tend to have an opinion and do not want any facts to get in the way.  How sad for you.  I am sorry for what ever happened to whatever franchised business you owned or own.  Maybe Ed is right about not responding to visitor postings since you don't need to take any ownership for your positions personally.  I imagine you find some strength in not identifying who you are.  That is fine really and if that is the position on BMM those are the rules here.  But understand that anonymous postings or the use of pseudonyms instead of actual names is likely the reason that most professionals in franchising tend to look at some very good articles on this site only and don't respond to posts.  Its  like Playboy in a way - regardless of whether the pictures are entertaining, the articles can be informative whether or not you agree with the position of the authors and BMM can actually be a good source for some information.  But most professionals rarely if ever respond to posts or contribute because of the web site’s policy. 

 

Why do I bother?  I guess I am wound a bit differently and that I actually enjoy in an odd way the Seidbar discussions when they are addressed to me or about me or when they misrepresent the IFA’s position or attack some of their staff.  For me, its sort of like sitting in a comfortable Seidchair.  It does not take a lot of effort.  Since the challenge of responding is most often a relaxing extension of my Seidline as a writer and the posts are so easily addressed and put on the Seid when I have the time, or one of the teams I might be following is not playing, think of it as a Seid benefit.  But please, feel free to not respond to my post if you think they are simply hot air and my positions don't matter.  I will respond to yours from time to time, since as an anonymous visitor, you might actually be someone whose position I would want to influence.  You never know who is important and I would not want to miss such an opportunity.

 

If you are in NYC this week, come to one of the educational programs we are conducting at the IFE.  Ask some questions.  You don't even have to identify yourself.  You might even get to experience a different Seid of me than you thought and most assuredly, you can get an understanding of my views on a lot of subjects related to franchising.

Re: Franchisees be dammed, et al

Michael, after enjoying the best veal parm dinner one could ever have, compliments of my wife, I wandered on to BMM and lo and behold I read your manifesto opps column. I have to commend you for taking the time to respond to the unknown critic not be confused with the unknown comic. I would hope that at the very least you've dispelled some of the childless and unfounded rumors regarding the IFA, its origination and operation.  I've been around a few years and recall many moons ago when the IFA reached out to a certain franchisee association but to no avail. The important point; as you know the efforts of the IFA are primarly directed towards promoting and protecting the integrity of the franchise industry. As is the case with any organization, there are imperfections. I strive to maintain a balance between the legitimate interests of the franchisor and the franchisees, but it isn't easy, Its like critiquing the NRA, you are either in 100% or you're an outsider. The other day I was cleaning out my bookcase and I found a copy of the first Franchise Relations Handbook publishd by the IFA in 1994. Guess who wrote Chapter 1, yours truly. I don't think it would fetch much on EBay so I'll hold on to it. . 

Thanks Ed

I just looked at my post.  I guess manifesto is likely the right term.  Think i will go put on a hoodie and some sun glasses.  (-:

If I recall Bruce Bloom and Katherine Morgan used to edit those handbooks.  They are a useful tool.  I think i have contributed some chapters myself on managing change in a franchise system and working with franchisee associations. 

From reading the posts on BMM, I guess the circulation of the handbook is not very wide - given the portrayal of the association here.  If its an online publication, you might want to post a link to it in your next article.

I expect I will see you in NY at the IFE. 

Travel safe

Michael

 

Thanks Ed

I just looked at my post.  I guess manifesto is likely the right term.  Think i will go put on a hoodie and some sun glasses.  (-:

If I recall Bruce Bloom and Katherine Morgan used to edit those handbooks.  They are a useful tool.  I think i have contributed some chapters myself on managing change in a franchise system and working with franchisee associations. 

From reading the posts on BMM, I guess the circulation of the handbook is not very wide - given the portrayal of the association here.  If its an online publication, you might want to post a link to it in your next article.

I expect I will see you in NY at the IFE. 

Travel safe

Michael

 

oh how cute

Michael n eddie are so involved in getting their corrupt franchisor ways on this site they converse and pat each other on the back on bmm, you continue to blabber rant about what people say and acuse them of not reading previous posts yet you obviously pick and choose which ones to respond to also. You both get mad and spew out name calling when someone disagrees with you. (ED)
News flash guys their are lots of different visitors on this site, I have wrote just a few comments only to get trashed by the zor fraud protection machine! So as far as civil conversation and identification, not going to happen as long as vultures like you are out to expose people just to attack.
THE Franchisors would love to have everyone they screwed over that speaks be identified! Ya think!
Can't wait to see what you cry about next!
Oh no I can't see who said that boo hoo.

OK - Its late but let me respond

 

I am very sorry that your posts using Seid, instead of side, did not get a rise out of me.  Is that what is bothering you?  Your joke did not work?  Don’t you think as an adult that trying to make fun of someone else’s last name is just a tad juvenile? Most people stop doing that fairly early in life around the same time they stop telling or laughing at knock-knock jokes.  I doubt if your calling Ed Teixeira eddie (you could have at least capitalized it) is going to bother him much either. 

 

You don't want to identify yourself because you think you might be in some jeopardy with your franchisor if you do?  That is fine.  Not certain where I said you needed to. As you correctly point out, there may be lots of people posting to BMM as visitors and it is difficult to separate out one inaccurate statement from another by which visitor said what.   I just can’t understand why you would be upset if you were not the person that made each and every statement I commented on.  Which ones do you take credit for?

 

Seriously, as I said in my post, or what Ed called my “Manifesto” I am truly sorry if your experience as a franchisee did not work out for you.  But understand, for most franchisees, that is not the case.  Franchisors are no more fungible than franchisees. Some offer great business  opportunities, some offer good opportunities, some are trying to improve and most certainly, some are really quite bad. You want to highlight the bad ones.  I am fine with that.  What I am not fine with though is that you want to represent all of franchising as being bad.  That simply is not the case.

 

OK - Its late but let me respond

 

I am very sorry that your posts using Seid, instead of side, did not get a rise out of me.  Is that what is bothering you?  Your joke did not work?  Don’t you think as an adult that trying to make fun of someone else’s last name is just a tad juvenile? Most people stop doing that fairly early in life around the same time they stop telling or laughing at knock-knock jokes.  I doubt if your calling Ed Teixeira eddie (you could have at least capitalized it) is going to bother him much either. 

 

You don't want to identify yourself because you think you might be in some jeopardy with your franchisor if you do?  That is fine.  Not certain where I said you needed to. As you correctly point out, there may be lots of people posting to BMM as visitors and it is difficult to separate out one inaccurate statement from another by which visitor said what.   I just can’t understand why you would be upset if you were not the person that made each and every statement I commented on.  Which ones do you take credit for?

 

Seriously, as I said in my post, or what Ed called my “Manifesto” I am truly sorry if your experience as a franchisee did not work out for you.  But understand, for most franchisees, that is not the case.  Franchisors are no more fungible than franchisees. Some offer great business  opportunities, some offer good opportunities, some are trying to improve and most certainly, some are really quite bad. You want to highlight the bad ones.  I am fine with that.  What I am not fine with though is that you want to represent all of franchising as being bad.  That simply is not the case.

 

Dribble

Seid: "I am truly sorry if your experience as a franchisee did not work out for you. But understand, for most franchisees, that is not the case."

That is utter nonsense.

Seid: "Franchisors are no more fungible than franchisees."

Dribble.

Response to Michael Seid

Michael: you are only responding in such long (long) style because of the upcoming International Franchise Expo and that this is a good time to get your name on the blogosphere. In writing, keep in mind "more is less".

Regarding the fair point you always make about there are bad franchisors (and franchisees), so then what are you doing to fix that? After years on the IFA Board, you would think there would be an issue to "clean our house". But with franchisor money and political hacks like Steve Caldeira, it won't happen.

Steve Caldeira is a political hack from the Long Island GOP machine, pothole Al D'Amato's one time campaign manager. Steve was the very first Dunkin Brands executive terminated by Nigel Travis when Nigel came in to fix a very bad, anti-franchisee culture at Dunkin Brands. Praise should go to Bain Capital et al. for recognizing another hack, and Caldeira "rabbi", Jon Luther couldn't handle the IPO. Later, Luther helped Caldeira get to the IFA.

Steve had fraud on his watch at Dunkin where a staffer pled guilty in federal court to stealing funds from the franchisees ad co-op. All documented. There was more IFA hanky panky in DC relative to the SBA, which will come out.

Now, how can anyone like that not want photo-ops and be an effective leader? yet you supported him in your (long) piece.