The Minnesota government in St Paul is considering a bill that, if approved, would regulate the names of new and existing businesses in the gopher state. The bill is aimed at 'and son' businesses, which are usually formed by a surname followed by 'and Son(s).' Specifically, the law targets surnames that end in -son.
For example, Samuelson & Son, Peerson & Son, Gustavson & Son, Benson & Son, Mathieson & Son, Anderson & Son and Emanuelson & Son are a handful of business names in Minnesota that would be affected if passed. If the state has their say the above companies must use 'and relative(s)' in place of 'and son(s)' or eliminate the 'son' from the surname (Ander and Son). Confused yet?
"It's redundant and there are quite a few of them in the state," said Minnesota state senator, Mike Holst. "It's confusing to customers. Why can't the 'son' in the last name double for the 'and son?' Ander&son would work fine."
The vote will take place in several weeks and has much of the state's 'and son' owners extremely upset.
"We've been Anderson & Son for 54 years," said funeral director Colson Anderson who has three daughters, and no sons, all of which are not active in the organization. "Anderson & Relative just doesn't sound right."
Hence, another issue that concerns the state is that an estimated 40% of these 'and son' businesses do not have a son involved at all in the day-to-day operation of the business.
Sonnerson and Son, Inc in Bells Mills, MN, a lake counting firm, contains three 'sons' in its name and in only a month or so could see its new name be reduced to simply ... Son, Inc.
The name restrictions would not include surnames ending in -sen or -sin. 'And Child' may also appear in the name but not 'And Children.' The state claims this law proposal was not in any way inspired by South Dakota's recent approval of a similar bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment