Oiselle says Tori Franklin broke her Oiselle contract to compete for Nike at USAs

Oh, just in case Tori Franklin is a militant feminist like Sally and other Oiselle members, then I hope they cat fight each other at the steeple chase pit. I have no tolerance for the militant sexist behaviour of Oiselle, Sally, or their feminist members blaming men for everything including why they are fat.

Oiselle Astroturfers are here in full force wrote:

You guys are all f'ing idiots, and Oiselle are a bunch of amateurs.

That they don't have any type of termination clause or liquidated damages in their contract just highlights what a lame operation they are or, alternatively, what a peanuts contract it was.

Without that, Franklin will return what she was given under the contract and wipe her hands of this bullshit company. You can ALWAYS terminate a contract, and it's Oiselle's own fucking fault they didn't put anything in there to dictate the terms of how the relationship would be dissolved.

This has nothing to do with Franklin's integrity and more to do with what a shitshow of a business is being run up in Seattle. If they wanted their bonus back, they shouldn't have shamed the kid on social media.

Don't criticize athletes for poor business practices.

+1

For god's sake Oiselle, you paid $3500 in expenses to Franklin to promote your company. I argue you got more than your money's worth out of this deal, don't you think? Tori Franklin represented you for a few months for PEANUTS and you got an American Record set by an athlete wearing your Oiselle uniform.

You wanted Franklin to walk away from a Nike contract or take a significant cut in compensation from Nike to wear your uniform at USATF. Shame on you. No longer a fan.

She is not, however, owed a living.

I don't see that Oiselle did anything wrong, including Bergesen's blog post. On the contrary, we little people of LR should be glad that someone in the industry is shining a light on what actually goes on.

an outsider wrote:

She is not, however, owed a living.

What does this statement mean?

Is my doctor owed a living? Is the teacher at my kids' school owed a living?

Hell they should all work for free.

an outsider wrote:

She is not, however, owed a living.

I don't see that Oiselle did anything wrong, including Bergesen's blog post. On the contrary, we little people of LR should be glad that someone in the industry is shining a light on what actually goes on.

OK, that's fine - but why is Oiselle owed anything? Their contract with Tori has language to cover breach. If she opts to follow that her contractual right to breach or terminate the contract, what's wrong with that? I've told landlords in the past that I'm breaking an apartment lease - is that unethical?

Oiselle isn't concerned about people breaking these contracts, otherwise they'd simply increase the penalty or add a strong liquidated damage - totally within their rights. Everyone keeps harping on how Tori knew the contract only paid her peanuts; well, Oiselle knew the contract offered them no protection in the case that Tori terminated. This is an arm's-length transaction, and Oiselle fully understood what they signed up for. They're not a victim here.

They did, however, see an opportunity to paint themselves as a victim to drum up public support and sympathy. That is the entire and only point of Bergesen's blog post.

No company is under any moral obligation to pay anyone a living wage. That’s not a right. If the local shoe store wants to pay me $500 to wear their singlet in races that’s fine. Why should they pay me $30,000 or whatever it is y’all think a living wage is?

Are you arguing that she should have been paid more because she’s good? That she should have been paid more because the company was her primary source of income?

Mtn Dew wrote:

No company is under any moral obligation to pay anyone a living wage. That’s not a right. If the local shoe store wants to pay me $500 to wear their singlet in races that’s fine. Why should they pay me $30,000 or whatever it is y’all think a living wage is?

Are you arguing that she should have been paid more because she’s good? That she should have been paid more because the company was her primary source of income?

Who said Oiselle is obligated to pay her a living wage? Apparently Oiselle can only afford $3500 for expenses reimbursement and the $5k American Record bonus.

Nike offered to pay her a living wage.

I have no respect because she signed her contract when no one was interested. She should have some loyalty that last as long as the contract.

I could be talking about Desi Linden or Tori Franklin. It applies to both.

Interesting side note. Both were coached by Walt Drenth.

I hope they both enjoy their new found pay checks. I am no longer a fan of either. I teach PE in Metro Detroit and was given a poster of Desi Linden finishing 2011 Boston Marathon. It will come down on my first day of school next fall.

Neither of these athletes share the loyalty values that I want to teach my students. Coach Drenth you dropped the ball with these two.

Desi Linden of the field events wrote:

I have no respect because she signed her contract when no one was interested. She should have some loyalty that last as long as the contract.

Loyalty? You want to talk about loyalty?

Tori Franklin participated in Oiselle promotional events and set an AR wearing an Oiselle uniform. What did Oiselle pay for this promotion? $3500 to reimburse travel and gear expense. A good deal for Oiselle if you ask me.

Nike comes along and offers her a living wage.

People like you say "No Tori no, you are so disloyal! You need to work for Oiselle for next to nothing! You owe them that! They made you!!!"

There is a major difference between Tori and Desi.

Tori set a WR after a couple months with Oiselle. Oiselle had nothing to do with her development.

Desi ran for Hansons for 5 years before doing anything significant and 13 years before winning Boston. Desi would never have been a Pro without Hansons.

An astonishing number of people in this thread seem to feel that breaching a contract is just fine, and should carry no penalty. Amazing.

tacomafan wrote:

An astonishing number of people in this thread seem to feel that breaching a contract is just fine, and should carry no penalty. Amazing.

There is not a single post that says there should be no penalty. You are creating a straw man argument.

Tori Franklin reimbursed to Oiselle the $3500 they paid her towards travel and gear.

Oiselle can sue if they feel they are owed more than this.

what what what wrote:

tacomafan wrote:

An astonishing number of people in this thread seem to feel that breaching a contract is just fine, and should carry no penalty. Amazing.

There is not a single post that says there should be no penalty. You are creating a straw man argument.

Tori Franklin reimbursed to Oiselle the $3500 they paid her towards travel and gear.

Oiselle can sue if they feel they are owed more than this.

I agree with this. The contract is pretty lame, and she sportingly did a lot of events for them, like a spoken word poetry slam-slash-runway show, which I would pay $3500 just to get out of.

I wonder how much they gave Tori for the AR though, because that doesn't sound like it was part of the contract and she's not giving that back.

ubecake wrote:

what what what wrote:

There is not a single post that says there should be no penalty. You are creating a straw man argument.

Tori Franklin reimbursed to Oiselle the $3500 they paid her towards travel and gear.

Oiselle can sue if they feel they are owed more than this.

I agree with this. The contract is pretty lame, and she sportingly did a lot of events for them, like a spoken word poetry slam-slash-runway show, which I would pay $3500 just to get out of.

I wonder how much they gave Tori for the AR though, because that doesn't sound like it was part of the contract and she's not giving that back.

Should have read earlier post that wejo says it's $5,000. She says she earned that. I think she should actually give that back, and not reimburse the travel $3,500. Because she wore their gear and went to events and fulfilled that part of the contract. The bonus was on Oiselle's discretion, so she should give that back as she's taking it upon herself to end the contract early. Which I don't blame her for at all.

Oiselle doesn't owe her anything, like a living wage, but I totally understand why she wouldn't feel indebted to them AT ALL. The wording on their blog is so sanctimonious and self-serving and passive aggressive all at once.

ubecake wrote:

Oiselle doesn't owe her anything, like a living wage, but I totally understand why she wouldn't feel indebted to them AT ALL. The wording on their blog is so sanctimonious and self-serving and passive aggressive all at once.

Agree that Oiselle doesn't owe her a living wage. On the other hand they shouldn't prevent Tori Franklin from earning a living wage from another company.

This whole episode reflects poorly on the leadership at Oiselle.

"We included her in our Runway Slam (a poetry slam/fashion show in Seattle), and in a campaign for upcoming product releases this summer and fall. " —from the Oiselle blog.

You mean, you used her in your campaigns and fashion show. Her feelings would not have been hurt if you hadn't "included" her. This wording makes me think Oiselle is full of it. They make it sound like they used her image out of the goodness of their fulsome hearts to give her something fun to do. Feel like she's part of the flock! Friends don't need to get paid extra for campaigns and modeling work. They're friends!

I really only read the op but good contracts should cover all contingencies, what ifs, etc. Lesson learned if it did not.

Rrfgjjmmj wrote:

I really only read the op but good contracts should cover all contingencies, what ifs, etc. Lesson learned if it did not.

This arrangement was peanuts. They gave her gear and some travel expenses. It would cost more in legal than what they paid her.

I wonder what the annual salary is for Oiselle's lowest paid full time employee. Granted those individuals don't sign one year contracts, but when they are promoted, their salary changes.

Also, Franklin's inclusion in the "Runway Slam" sounds like work. I don't know if something like that is part of her contract, but to not pay Franklin (or any of the other Oiselle athletes if this was the case for them) for their time and use of her (their) likeness(es) from that event is shady. It's one thing to sponsor athletes with equipment and travel so that they will wear your kit while they are competing, but to then ask them to work for free outside of the sport, whether legal or not, is low of any company. And when the athlete leaves and said company whines about "she left even after all we've done for her..." I roll my eyes.

When a track athlete has a chance to make more money, that is always good. When an American record holder is making $5000 plus expenses, that is bad. Many times it has been Nike that has prevented athletes from earning their market value, but this time they are the ones who offered it. Good for them. I don't feel bad for Oiselle in this situation. I hope all of the athletes that they sponsor breakout and can demand that they receive market value or they walk. That is true of athletes sponsored by any company as well.