Sure: They stamp their little feet for a bit but…
…they show who the weaker and already bankrupt party truly is. Tyrants always overreact and commit credibility suicide in this manner. They’re blinded by their own self-loathing and feelings of inadequacies as men and women.
Executives that preserve their careers by creating a toxic environment for franchisees that breeds 3rd party violence, mental distress, endangering public safety…well, those weasels deserve justice. Absolutely. Contempt to the contemptible.
However, their amorality is beyond any mortal’s capacity to deliver. They deserve everyone’s pity, not attention.
Old School: Franchise relations seen as if it were a tug of war. It isn’t. It’s always been bullshit thinking. It creates a passive defensive posture by our-psyched, intimidated (via education, status, class, profession, white/blue collar) franchisees.
- Some might say the aggression starts the moment the contract is signed. You have become less of a person because you have (without knowing it) given up some your human rights (freedom to associate, freedom of speech, etc.).
- Some say when the franchisor’s mask of reasonableness falls away (refuse to deal, spend $1 million on litigation before negotiating $1 to franchisees).
- How about when a franchisor directly threatens a franchisee leader with a personal lawsuit within 24 hours?
Each of these situations should be weighted by the executive and Board but a new type of franchisee organization (Leaderless Franchisee Network) simply ignores bad behavior.
It seems like an impossible match: a multi-billion $ per year transnational corporation versus a handful of Canadian franchisees.
Bullies can only do two things: Lie and then Sue, sue, sue.
There is a perception that people that get sued, somehow deserved it. That is a fiction in franchising. Almost all lawsuits have nothing to do with the stated damages because everyone knows the franchisees have no $ to collect.
Litigation is an economic club used to bludgeon the “uppity” into submission based on the high cost of defence (war of attrition, matching $ for $). An economic and mental health assault; a negotiating tactic without any concept of fair play.
- That’s dinosaur (top:down, win:lose, pyramid) thinking.
An AFN, exec and Board doesn’t get sidetracked by such impotent posturing. They realize that 95% of a franchisee group’s actions has zero to do with what the franchisor does or does not do.
Only the intellectually bankrupt hide behind a Bay Street bully lawyer. IndFAs get sucked into that win:lose game.
AFNs don’t operate that way. They risk manager and allow the dinosaurs to commit suicide ASAP.
Corrupt elites are consistently surprised when the good are clever.