The IFA is no friend of the Franchisee. They are controlled and dominated by the big Franchisors, including McDonalds. (McD actually has a seat on the IFA board). BEWARE
You are correct, but they do share concerns on some issues with franchisees, such as joint-employer (which could ruin everyone's life). As we've discussed before, it's a "strange bedfellows" relationship with franchisees. So it's best to keep an eye on their activities. However, if an army of franchisees ever made some serious progress with franchisee-friendly legislation (state or federal), the IFA would be first on the scene to kill the legislation. Independent associations like the NOA are the only organizations 100% dedicated to the franchisee's welfare. Nevertheless, these associations should keep an eye on the IFA for some good, and some awful ideas. .
It astounds me that any cogent owner operator would not be a member of the NOA. The NFLA is inept, controlled and dominated by McD. The NOA actively represents owners interests and protects our equity, which is why McD dislikes the independent NOA. Besides , sixty nine cents a day, ($250 per year), is cheap insurance to get your voice heard and concerns addressed. Otherwise, as Myra so callously said, youre just renting the brand, not a partner but a tenant.
IFA is of course heavily influenced by the big franchisors that pay essentially all of IFA's bills (with huge industry supplier revenue added), but it has some very influential franchisees on its board and among its members that drive franchisee-centric initiatives.
One clear example is the California franchise brokers laws (SB 919) that IFA, with these franchisees' guidance, partnered with CFA (NOA is an influential member of CFA) and AAFD to get it passed. IFA wants that to go national and many franchise brokers are screaming about it but it was the right thing to do to prevent franchisees from getting ripped off at the start of the process.
On relationship laws, Richard is right. IFA will always oppose them unless the applicable legislature is inclined to pass it, like happened in California with AB 525 and some later amendments that made is even more strong. There are some aspects of relationship laws that IFA will live with, though it clearly prefers no such law.
IFA's tax priorities are also franchisee driven. Its focus on 179A depreciation, where franchisees, who pay 100% of the cost of most remodels, benefit. Same with WOTC expansion and 199A with S corps and LLCs getting a 20% tax deduction that big C corps, like MCD, do not get.
Some of those benefit smaller franchisors, too, of course, but IFA recognizes that without franchisee investors, there is no such thing as franchising. Fortunately, some franchisees, including MCD franchisees, get involved with IFA to be a voice for franchisees there.
4 comments:
The IFA is no friend of the Franchisee. They are controlled and dominated by the big Franchisors, including McDonalds. (McD actually has a seat on the IFA board). BEWARE
You are correct, but they do share concerns on some issues with franchisees, such as joint-employer (which could ruin everyone's life). As we've discussed before, it's a "strange bedfellows" relationship with franchisees. So it's best to keep an eye on their activities. However, if an army of franchisees ever made some serious progress with franchisee-friendly legislation (state or federal), the IFA would be first on the scene to kill the legislation. Independent associations like the NOA are the only organizations 100% dedicated to the franchisee's welfare. Nevertheless, these associations should keep an eye on the IFA for some good, and some awful ideas.
.
It astounds me that any cogent owner operator would not be a member of the NOA. The NFLA is inept, controlled and dominated by McD. The NOA actively represents owners interests and protects our equity, which is why McD dislikes the independent NOA. Besides , sixty nine cents a day, ($250 per year), is cheap insurance to get your voice heard and concerns addressed. Otherwise, as Myra so callously said, youre just renting the brand, not a partner but a tenant.
IFA is of course heavily influenced by the big franchisors that pay essentially all of IFA's bills (with huge industry supplier revenue added), but it has some very influential franchisees on its board and among its members that drive franchisee-centric initiatives.
One clear example is the California franchise brokers laws (SB 919) that IFA, with these franchisees' guidance, partnered with CFA (NOA is an influential member of CFA) and AAFD to get it passed. IFA wants that to go national and many franchise brokers are screaming about it but it was the right thing to do to prevent franchisees from getting ripped off at the start of the process.
On relationship laws, Richard is right. IFA will always oppose them unless the applicable legislature is inclined to pass it, like happened in California with AB 525 and some later amendments that made is even more strong. There are some aspects of relationship laws that IFA will live with, though it clearly prefers no such law.
IFA's tax priorities are also franchisee driven. Its focus on 179A depreciation, where franchisees, who pay 100% of the cost of most remodels, benefit. Same with WOTC expansion and 199A with S corps and LLCs getting a 20% tax deduction that big C corps, like MCD, do not get.
Some of those benefit smaller franchisors, too, of course, but IFA recognizes that without franchisee investors, there is no such thing as franchising. Fortunately, some franchisees, including MCD franchisees, get involved with IFA to be a voice for franchisees there.
Post a Comment