Could Franchise Labor Ruling Effect FedEx Ground Franchise Model?

[I Am Jacks Damaged Box]

Is this the sort of sentence that geniuses are constructing these days?

Saw that as well but passed on the opportunity.

Excrement happens.

 

[TUT]

This will never happen. It would cripple too many large companies. All the people thinking they've really pulled one over on the IC's are fools. If by some chance it does happen, imagine how Fedex would screw the "little guy".

You know they said that in the 20's and corporations continued to grow stronger. They've grown exponentially since the crash of 2008. They took things then and they've done better than ever now for a good while, under a demo president, go figure that one. But they haven't given back, in fact they are still selling fear of costs, we are still in a bunker-budget mentality. So no matter how good it gets, they are in fear of giving back, it's a great little trick the have going on there.

What many do and I did the same with Trickle Economics is I'm trying to see from their perspective what they need to be successful to think if they are then I will be to. But what I've found out is they have only been looking at their benefits now and not ours. So we have one side looking out for both and the other looking out for A#1. I don't like playing the fool.

So they want a market economy, they want survival of the fittest, then we should look out only for our interests, that way everything is in proper balance since that is what they do. We'll all still find a livable middle ground, it's not doom, but that is what they sell in hopes you will not ask for more. See this way, I don't need to over-think it, I don't have to be apathetic for others pov's. I'll just take care of my own, exactly like you do. Fair enough. We'll find a balance there. Otherwise I'm playing myself.

Don't have to take my word for it, you can see these employment challenges all over the place now and I'm ok with it, that is how it works when either side over-steps their bounds. They'll get to run with it for a while, but there are breaking points and then adjustments. Ideally neither side ever over steps bounds and we can live in harmony for longer periods, but history is a hard lesson to learn and we will repeat this economic struggle over and over.

 

[OUMick]

We vote against self-interest. We as in a general whole, there are always exceptions. We put our feet in their shoes. "You know, they do need these breaks", "they do need these ________". Do you think they put their shoes in our feet when they vote? No the vote for their needs. They hire people to continue to find loop holes (albeit legally) all in their self-interest. So what I'm saying is a smart voter should vote for their interests, because the rich aren't voting for your middle class interests. It's a good apathetic gesture, "Looking out for the other guy", but if they don't return the favor back to you, you are a schmuck (See Goodfella's for definition). I don't like being one and they have been proving for quite a while now, they don't return favors.

The sad part is too many people are convinced they are voting for their own interest. The truly powerful are only giving them the options they want to give them.

 

[OUMick]

Is this the sort of sentence that geniuses are constructing these days?

Sorry was typing on my phone at the time. I'll be sure and proofread all my posts for you in the future.

 

[Route 66]

Sorry was typing on my phone at the time. I'll be sure and proofread all my posts for you in the future.

Thank you!

 

[Bounty]

How specific to the FedEx situation this applies might be open to interpretation at the moment but could this end up as the crack in the door?


The Labor Ruling McDonald's Has Been Dreading Just Became A Reality

This story is gaining steam all over CNBC today

 

[FedGT]

One more thing about investing in this scam. The ones defending it on this board(bbsam, it will be fine and fxgt)have been in it for a long time and did not purchase routes. They spew their nonsense to protect their investment. Buy some real estate, at least you really own it.

I didn't know you were my buddy that knows what all of us have received for free or bought. I have bought all my routes, I am not a 20 year vet, not anywhere close. The largest difference between all of us is simple, we defend against blatant stupidity, we acknowledge where FedEx causes problems, we shine light on the other side of the debate. None of us will say ground is the best and there are no faults, we will acknowledge where ex is wrong but none of you will acknowledge when they are right and it is a fair amount.

 

[Bounty]

I didn't know you were my buddy that knows what all of us have received for free or bought. I have bought all my routes, I am not a 20 year vet, not anywhere close. The largest difference between all of us is simple, we defend against blatant stupidity, we acknowledge where FedEx causes problems, we shine light on the other side of the debate. None of us will say ground is the best and there are no faults, we will acknowledge where ex is wrong but none of you will acknowledge when they are right and it is a fair amount.

I'm not your buddy. If you bought into this scam then I actually feel sorry for you. Hope you didn't throw a lot of $ away. Of course you will defend it, you have a lot to lose.

 

[dmac1]

This decision is all about the teamsters not taxes. It's a decision by the NLRB for teamsters to be able to negotiate with the company paying the worker's boss. The IRS is not involved here at all.
The implications would be extreme were this to hold up. Hire a contractor to put a new roof on your house, you'll need to have workers comp insurance on that contractor's employees since you will be their joint-employer. It doesn't make sense. People and corporations hire companies to perform work. Making them responsible for the wages and benefits those companies pay is insane and impractical.
The biggest problem with this is the government's own heavy reliance on contractors. They won't want every employee of government contractors organizing with the public sector unions. That would eliminate the savings of contracting the work out to begin with.

It is obvious that you haven't paid attention. If you hire a roofer, it is a one time project, and clearly meets the rules for contractor status.

But fedex is in the package delivery business. It is their core business and they use delivery drivers every day.

What doesn't make sense is for you to post nonsense.If fedex hired a roofer to fix their roof, that would fall under contractor status. But if fedex hired a roofer to perform checks and maintenance on their roof every day, on a full time basis, it would be clear that the roofer was an employee. If fedex contracted with a roofing company to supply someone to perform every day full time for fedex, and that roofer relied solely on fedex for all his hours of work, that worker would maybe fall under the co-employee status. This isn't new. Personnell staffing agencies have been getting in trouble over this type of 'contract' arrangement for years. Fedex has just started thinking that they could 'contract' with staffing companies that fedex calls 'ISPs.' In reality, that is all an ISP is- a staffing agency for fedex, and a vehicle leasing company. The ISP in almost every case is solel;y reliant on fedex for income from his 'business.'

 

[Bounty]

It is obvious that you haven't paid attention. If you hire a roofer, it is a one time project, and clearly meets the rules for contractor status.

But fedex is in the package delivery business. It is their core business and they use delivery drivers every day.

What doesn't make sense is for you to post nonsense.If fedex hired a roofer to fix their roof, that would fall under contractor status. But if fedex hired a roofer to perform checks and maintenance on their roof every day, on a full time basis, it would be clear that the roofer was an employee. If fedex contracted with a roofing company to supply someone to perform every day full time for fedex, and that roofer relied solely on fedex for all his hours of work, that worker would maybe fall under the co-employee status. This isn't new. Personnell staffing agencies have been getting in trouble over this type of 'contract' arrangement for years. Fedex has just started thinking that they could 'contract' with staffing companies that fedex calls 'ISPs.' In reality, that is all an ISP is- a staffing agency for fedex, and a vehicle leasing company. The ISP in almost every case is solel;y reliant on fedex for income from his 'business.'

Iwbf just doesn't get it. (I think he does get it but won't admit it.)

 

[barnyard]

I thought the Uber ruling would have had a larger impact on the contractor model. For those that don not know... Uber was sued saying their drivers were employees, Uber said, no, they were contractors that Uber provided dispatching options.

Uber lost.

 

[MrFedEx]

It is obvious that you haven't paid attention. If you hire a roofer, it is a one time project, and clearly meets the rules for contractor status.

But fedex is in the package delivery business. It is their core business and they use delivery drivers every day.

What doesn't make sense is for you to post nonsense.If fedex hired a roofer to fix their roof, that would fall under contractor status. But if fedex hired a roofer to perform checks and maintenance on their roof every day, on a full time basis, it would be clear that the roofer was an employee. If fedex contracted with a roofing company to supply someone to perform every day full time for fedex, and that roofer relied solely on fedex for all his hours of work, that worker would maybe fall under the co-employee status. This isn't new. Personnell staffing agencies have been getting in trouble over this type of 'contract' arrangement for years. Fedex has just started thinking that they could 'contract' with staffing companies that fedex calls 'ISPs.' In reality, that is all an ISP is- a staffing agency for fedex, and a vehicle leasing company. The ISP in almost every case is solel;y reliant on fedex for income from his 'business.'

Great analogy. Eventually, the courts are going to see it the same way.

 

[It will be fine]

Iwbf just doesn't get it. (I think he does get it but won't admit it.)

I "get" everything you naysayers post. I just believe the rampant corruption in our government will continue to result in rulings and laws that are in favor of large corporations. I don't believe unions provide and equal financial opposition to corporations. There is no big money to protect workers. This is the main reason I have faith that the model will continue. Courts will slap corporations on the wrist, like the $200 mil ruling in Cali, corps will adapt and the model will continue. I'm a cynic with no reason to believe the American people will actually do anything to change the system.

 

[TUT]

I thought the Uber ruling would have had a larger impact on the contractor model. For those that don not know... Uber was sued saying their drivers were employees, Uber said, no, they were contractors that Uber provided dispatching options.

Uber lost.

Isn't that still ongoing?

 

[bbsam]

he ISP in almost every case is solel;y reliant on fedex for income from

But you miss the point and get the point all at the same time. Nearly every every ISP has the time to venture out into other businesses. Some actually choose to do so.

In the past, that wasn't the case. Single route owners were in the seat 10 hours a day and had little to no ability to do anything else.

Even a cynic like you must see the difference between what ISP is and what the IC model was.

 

[bbsam]

Isn't that still ongoing?

Yes. I still hear uber commercials touting "be your own boss".

 

[dvalleyjim]

Don't you think this hurts the value of "your business". You better hope the fool who is going to buy these scams doesn't due his due diligence.

You'd think. When I sat in the first meeting in CA when they told all single van contractors that they will no longer be contracting with them and valued their route at $30,000 I thought that my businesses value just nose dived. To my amazement route prices went through the roof. Illogical but many contractors will still buy routes until the end. When my routes more than doubled in value I sold.

 

[It will be fine]

I thought the Uber ruling would have had a larger impact on the contractor model. For those that don not know... Uber was sued saying their drivers were employees, Uber said, no, they were contractors that Uber provided dispatching options.

Uber lost.

They were sued by one driver saying they were an employee. It was ruled that one driver was an employee. Individual circumstances matter, that's why it doesn't change the overall model. Uber will tweak their model and roll on.

 

[It will be fine]

You'd think. When I sat in the first meeting in CA when they told all single van contractors that they will no longer be contracting with them and valued their route at $30,000 I thought that my businesses value just nose dived. To my amazement route prices went through the roof. Illogical but many contractors will still buy routes until the end. When my routes more than doubled in value I sold.

I thought you sold for personal reasons because you were moving?

 

[bbsam]

I thought you sold for personal reasons because you were moving?

He got enough money. That's a personal reason.