| Comment #22 From: Jim
Gray jgray@mail.acilink.net
Subject: ftc franchise rule we are writing concerning you intention of revising your franchise rule. the rule should be revised to include existing EXISTING FRANCHISEES. we are jim and evelena gray and have been pearle vision franchisees for almost 16 years. we now own 5 locations, 3 of which we developed our selves. recently, grandmet sold the pearle system to one of our former competitors, cole national, which has optical stores in sears, penny, target, foremost, and others as well as sears free standing locations. the offering made to the franchisees has ursurped all the economical and power while placing all the risk on the franchisee. we will not go into all the problems of the agreement but it extends to cole having the right to REPLACE YOUR STORE MANAGER AND REQUIRE YOU TO SEND THEM FOR TRANING AT LOCATIONS THEY SELECT. there is muck worse in the contract, this is an example of the extent of their power. we do not have to sign the agreement. by the time all are argeements expire, we will have been in the system for over 20 years. at that time we will have no equity, not be able to work within 5 miles of any of the locations because of the "no compete" clause. if we make it to the end. if one of the stores has problems the "cross default" clause allows them to take all locations. the state and federal has the concept that these are business contracts and all involved are "big boys" and take the risk. this is not true. hundreds of cases of agrieved franchisees are being brought to the justice system and many are found in their favor. millions and maybe more is spent in resolvinng problems that should not exist and would not if the law and the regulating agencies treated the franchisees fairly. i urge you to either revise your franchise rule to cover existing existing franchisees or to do away with it all to gether. respectfully submitted jim and evalena gray CC: FTC.SMTP("talk2jim@hr.house.gov") |