ry, which could use a little boost. Like OR, WA, OH, PA, WI, MS, etc.

The Federal Trade Commission has no business in commenting on that point or telling a franchisor what they can or cannot put in the documents regarding unions or franchisee associations as they would like you to call them. If a franchisor wishes to allow such associations and it makes sense, then they should be allowed to have them. If a union is formed against their will they should not be forced to acknowledge it in the disclosure documents. This is a tool, which the franchisee attorneys wish to use as a way to force franchisors to serve their will. Ultimately leading to lawsuits and more work for attorneys. They are using government to force this on franchisors rather than allow franchisors to e

Franchisee associations are unions. In the modern business world if a group of employees want to form a union and the employer doesn’t want it then the employer has a right to close the company. I believe franchisors ought to be allowed to put in the contract that if any franchisees get together and form a franchise association to use as collective bargaining power against the franchisor, other than an association approved by the franchisor, then the franchisor should have the right to terminate the franchise contract with all franchisees in that region immediately and shut down further operations under that brand name in that area indefinitely. When a small group of franchisees in one area use such unnatural market forces as a weapon against a franchisor then the franchisor has less ability to service the rest of the system and therefore other franchisees in other parts of the country or world will not get fair and equitable time and energies of the franchisor, thus those other franchisees will be damaged.

This will force those franchisees to start their own union (association) and demand for their rights. This will tear down the franchise system with infighting and the Federal Trade Commission should not condone such behavior as it damages franchisees who are without representation and are forced to join the association, thus they are forced to join a group that they did not know existed when they signed their franchise agreement. A group they may not agree with and a group, which may not have existed at the time they bought their franchise.

As a two-term board of directors member of the AAFD Association of Franchisees and Dealers I watched as franchisee associations were formed by class action franchisee attorneys and they took down some rather top notched franchise organizations. And in doing so hurt the investing public, consumers who had purchased franchises and relied on the assistance of the franchisor. As the associations started to gang up on the franchisor, the franchisor was so busy defending against the onslaught of sometimes frivolous law suits that they could not perform their obligations as franchisor.

I do not believe the Federal Trade Commission should have any guidelines as to the use of franchisee associations. There are many great companies without unions who generally provide a greater efficiency in the market place to consumers and definitely higher productivity, this is great for consumers of goods and services and the general productivity of the nation. A franchisor should be allowed to put in his documents that; “if you buy this franchise you agree not to form a franchisee association or union of franchisees.”

I do not believe that the Federal Trade Commission should get in the middle of the franchise relationship because a group of lawyers representing franchisees advised them to do so in the FTC rule-making commenting sessions. Franchisee attorneys stand to make a windfall on such changes in the rule and that impedes the franchise model and means less companies will use it. This means slower growth and fewer jobs in many parts of our country, which could use a little boost. Like OR, WA, OH, PA, WI, MS, etc.

The Federal Trade Commission has no business in commenting on that point or telling a franchisor what they can or cannot put in the documents regarding unions or franchisee associations as they would like you to call them. If a franchisor wishes to allow such associations and it makes sense, then they should be allowed to have them. If a union is formed against their will they should not be forced to acknowledge it in the disclosure documents. This is a tool, which the franchisee attorneys wish to use as a way to force franchisors to serve their will. Ultimately leading to lawsuits and more work for attorneys. They are using government to force this on franchisors rather than allow franchisors to en

has less ability to service the rest of the system and therefore other franchisees in other parts of the country or world will not get fair and equitable time and energies of the franchisor, thus those other franchisees will be damaged.

This will force those franchisees to start their own union (association) and demand for their rights. This will tear down the franchise system with infighting and the Federal Trade Commission should not condone such behavior as it damages franchisees who are without representation and are forced to join the association, thus they are forced to join a group that they did not know existed when they signed their franchise agreement. A group they may not agree with and a group, which may not have existed at the time they bought their franchise.

As a two-term board of directors member of the AAFD Association of Franchisees and Dealers I watched as franchisee associations were formed by class action franchisee attorneys and they took down some rather top notched franchise organizations. And in doing so hurt the investing public, consumers who had purchased franchises and relied on the assistance of the franchisor. As the associations started to gang up on the franchisor, the franchisor was so busy defending against the onslaught of sometimes frivolous law suits that they could not perform their obligations as franchisor.

I do not believe the Federal Trade Commission should have any guidelines as to the use of franchisee associations. There are many great companies without unions who generally provide a greater efficiency in the market place to consumers and definitely higher productivity, this is great for consumers of goods and services and the general productivity of the nation. A franchisor should be allowed to put in his documents that; “if you buy this franchise you agree not to form a franchisee association or union of franchisees.”

I do not believe that the Federal Trade Commission should get in the middle of the franchise relationship because a group of lawyers representing franchisees advised them to do so in the FTC rule-making commenting sessions. Franchisee attorneys stand to make a windfall on such changes in the rule and that impedes the franchise model and means less companies will use it. This means slower growth and fewer jobs in many parts of our country, which could use a little boost. Like OR, WA, OH, PA, WI, MS, etc.

The Federal Trade Commission has no business in commenting on that point or telling a franchisor what they can or cannot put in the documents regarding unions or franchisee associations as they would like you to call them. If a franchisor wishes to allow such associations and it makes sense, then they should be allowed to have them. If a union is formed against their will they should not be forced to acknowledge it in the disclosure documents. This is a tool, which the franchisee attorneys wish to use as a way to force franchisors to serve their will. Ultimately leading to lawsuits and more work for attorneys. They are using government to force this on franchisors rather than allow franchisors to e

e.

As a two-term board of directors member of the AAFD Association of Franchisees and Dealers I watched as franchisee associations were formed by class action franchisee attorneys and they took down some rather top notched franchise organizations. And in doing so hurt the investing public, consumers who had purchased franchises and relied on the assistance of the franchisor. As the associations started to gang up on the franchisor, the franchisor was so busy defending against the onslaught of sometimes frivolous law suits that they could not perform their obligations as franchisor.

I do not believe the Federal Trade Commission should have any guidelines as to the use of franchisee associations. There are many great companies without unions who generally provide a greater efficiency in the market place to consumers and definitely higher productivity, this is great for consumers of goods and services and the general productivity of the nation. A franchisor should be allowed to put in his documents that; “if you buy this franchise you agree not to form a franchisee association or union of franchisees.”

I do not believe that the Federal Trade Commission should get in the middle of the franchise relationship because a group of lawyers representing franchisees advised them to do so in the FTC rule-making commenting sessions. Franchisee attorneys stand to make a windfall on such changes in the rule and that impedes the franchise model and means less companies will use it. This means slower growth and fewer jobs in many parts of our country, which could use a little boost. Like OR, WA, OH, PA, WI, MS, etc.

The Federal Trade Commission has no business in commenting on that point or telling a franchisor what they can or cannot put in the documents regarding unions or franchisee associations as they would like you to call them. If a franchisor wishes to allow such associations and it makes sense, then they should be allowed to have them. If a union is formed against their will they should not be forced to acknowledge it in the disclosure documents. This is a tool, which the franchisee attorneys wish to use as a way to force franchisors to serve their will. Ultimately leading to lawsuits and more work for attorneys. They are using government to force this on franchisors rather than allow franchisors to e

eater efficiency in the market place to consumers and definitely higher productivity, this is great for consumers of goods and services and the general productivity of the nation. A franchisor should be allowed to put in his documents that; “if you buy this franchise you agree not to form a franchisee association or union of franchisees.”

I do not believe that the Federal Trade Commission should get in the middle of the franchise relationship because a group of lawyers representing franchisees advised them to do so in the FTC rule-making commenting sessions. Franchisee attorneys stand to make a windfall on such changes in the rule and that impedes the franchise model and means less companies will use it. This means slower growth and fewer jobs in many parts of our country, which could use a little boost. Like OR, WA, OH, PA, WI, MS, etc.

The Federal Trade Commission has no business in commenting on that point or telling a franchisor what they can or cannot put in the documents regarding unions or franchisee associations as they would like you to call them. If a franchisor wishes to allow such associations and it makes sense, then they should be allowed to have them. If a union is formed against their will they should not be forced to acknowledge it in the disclosure documents. This is a tool, which the franchisee attorneys wish to use as a way to force franchisors to serve their will. Ultimately leading to lawsuits and more work for attorneys. They are using government to force this on franchisors rather than allow franchisors to e

ry, which could use a little boost. Like OR, WA, OH, PA, WI, MS, etc.

The Federal Trade Commission has no business in commenting on that point or telling a franchisor what they can or cannot put in the documents regarding unions or franchisee associations as they would like you to call them. If a franchisor wishes to allow such associations and it makes sense, then they should be allowed to have them. If a union is formed against their will they should not be forced to acknowledge it in the disclosure documents. This is a tool, which the franchisee attorneys wish to use as a way to force franchisors to serve their will. Ultimately leading to lawsuits and more work for attorneys. They are using government to force this on franchisors rather than allow franchisors to enforce their system to protect their trademarks and good will thru standardized methods and consistency. By allowing the playing field to become unbalanced and by taking sides the Federal Trade Commission will cause problems for franchisors and franchisee consumers who spent their life savings for the franchisor’s assistance. If the FTC allow the franchise system to be attacked from within and allow the unions into the disclosure documents then as new franchisees come on board the franchisee associations will do a smear campaign just like modern unions do.

You will have Guerilla Tactics and Primate Politics invade our franchise model. It will lead to possible insubordination, increased litigation between franchisor and franchise, thicker documents due to the upcoming increased litigation disclosure rules discussed in this report and all this further breaks down the franchise system and divides us. Similar to the media, lawyers at the polls and this last election, dividing America in 52%-48% ratio. Many great companies have been ruined by unions, unions have helped many workers, but it is best if the free market decides this on its own, with the Federal Trade Commission staying out of it. If the franchisor wants to allow them, great, if not, they should have available options of closing the region and terminating contracts immediately. If enough franchisees got together and the issues are that serious then the franchisor will have to listen because other wise their business will shrink in half over night and the lawsuits will be overwhelming. Let us let the free market decide these things.