Your quest for franchisee justice will lead you to a “white knight” lawyer who will betray you.

September 2, 2013

The franchise bar appears to 1st time user franchisees as fundamentally fair, adversarial and zero sumThat is a dangerous myth.

(c) Walker Art Gallery; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

The economic incentives for the “franchisee-friendly attorneys” are to give the pretence of a fair fight (definition: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true OED) since your being sold-out can be easily explained. Franchisee stupidity and shortsightedness is the most cited, least reality-based reason given.


Your franchisee attorney will defect on 100% of all large cases because the franchise industry is effectively a single-payer industry for legal services (franchisors: +95%). As in other human waste treatment systems, the franchise bar functions to let pass the little cases go to trial (to keep the payers fearful and motivated) but skims off the large chunks for the elite 2 firms.


Why would any franchisor pay out 100% of a massive claim to a group of franchisees for multi-year bad faith dealings when they could cut two cheques (1. their own lawyers and 2. your attorney) to manage the case to a “satisfactory conclusion”? Would 10 per cent of what franchisees are owed be a reasonably figure?

If you were a rational, profit-maximizing multi-decade career Big Franchising professional (who has their own very high sunk costs invested in the status quo industry practices and structure, btw), Wouldn’t YOU just keep your mouth shut, turn a blind eye and play along, too?

There are ways to deal with these perfectly explainable and rational, multiple-level credence good dangers but you may need to start serving legitimate authority instead of the posers that scatter when the light switch goes on the industry.

Sir Galahad:The Quest of the Holy Grail,  Arthur Hughes, 1870.

Faith comes in many sizes and shapes

October 15, 2011

Two questions for Chris Hedges

April 19, 2011

Throw Out the Moneychangers:  an act of civil disobedience in New York city his week

Here is the video for the full speech.

Here is the text of the speech.

Real businesspeople only respect power

March 6, 2011

Franchisees think that they will be given what they were promised.

That hasn’t happened in small business for decades.


Race, class & a Belief in a Just World

November 30, 2010

If you believe in a just world, you are a vulnerable class.

You were screened for this psychological trait as a candidate, socialized to identify with your jailers (authority, Stockholm syndrome) and excreted when the dough ran out.

Once upon a time at Canada Bread…

November 13, 2010

…employees and then franchisees had dignity.

They had dignity because, first, senior management was truthful to them.

To bullshit or lie to someone, to attack their families means that they have no respect for you.

  1. Senior managers come ::  Senior managers go.
  2. Owners come :: Owners go.

Smart breadmen and women protect their families by sticking together.

The deliver…they deliver the human trash back to where it came from: Bay Street. This is best done professionally, methodically, coolly in the only language they understand ($ and the law). Or it can be done in the alley. Either way, it’s happening. Right now, a cross all docks. The Rule of Law or Violence.

Show your children and your children’s children how people of dignity deal with garbage.

Wake up: take this decision to your kitchen table. Protect your equity.

Choose a future for your family.

It is the nature of mortals to kick a fallen man.

August 27, 2010

An excerpt from Professor Melvin J. Lerner’s book, The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.

The central theme of the “Belief in a Just World” theory creates a rather chilling image of humanity. It begins by describing how we live in a society that tolerates the widespread suffering and deprivation of innocent victims. Then the evidence is added that, for the sake of our own security, we either avoid these injustices, or we add to them by finding reasons to condemn the victims. We do this for quite understandable reasons. We want to – have to – believe that our world is so constructed that terrible thing happen to people who deserve them because they were “terrible” to others.

When our behavior is described in this bald, dramatic fashion, it becomes clear how disturbing such knowledge must be to our self-image and to our sense of security. To the extent that the findings and the metaphorical description of the relevant processes are persuasive, then we must feel degraded. Not only is there the implication that we may be directly responsible for adding to people’s misery by our rejection, but the reasons for our actions seem not only selfish, but rather petty and simpleminded.

That is a very difficult pill to swallow, and an immediate reaction is that I am a much better and sensible person than that. I am not that selfish or callous, and certainly not so naive as to try to maintain a fairy-tale image of my society. Only a fool would try to pretend that it is a just world, and it would take a sick fool to condemn innocent victims in order to protect such a foolish belief.

It is with thoughts such as these that the exploration began. At its best, it took the forms of fascinating experiments, which served to clarify and elaborate the processes underlying this belief in a just world, an our reactions to victims. And if the analysis of these efforts is correct, they produced a completely unintended bonus as case studies of the motivations underlying the “Belief in a Just World” – as this belief appears in all of us, even social psychologists.

From Chapter 6, Reactions to the Belief in a Just World Theory and Findings: The ‘Nay-Sayers’

Ever noticed some of the most severe critics of “disgruntled” franchisees are other franchisees themselves? Most usually shown through contempt and thinly-veiled hostility but through isolation also.

Everyone’s internal tendency to blame the victim for their misfortune leads, in my experience, to the difficulties and quick dissolution of any franchisee associations, other than the lapdog advisory councils.

Aeschylus 525 — 456 BC

%d bloggers like this: