I am going on a limb here.. Every delivery package I touch is a dollar. My pay for 2011 and 2012 are about equal in sync for the year's packages delivered. It is up to me to make it $23.75 an hour or $18.00. I have healthcare, and 401k. and I based it on 240 working days. Nobody commented on my last thread, this was my point. Ground Drivers can find a great gig..
First off, you are supposedly a route owner, not a helper. This malarkey about Ground helpers making $18/hr, having a 401 (k) and employer provided health insurance is just pure nonsense. The
typical Ground
helper makes $600 a week, works 50 hours (including all time at work, NOT just on road - Express employees are paid from the moment they clock in to the moment they clock out - they are WAGE EMPLOYEES). The $600/wk salary nets the Ground helper the equivalent hourly wage of between $11 and $11.50/hr. They don't get any benefits provided to them by their employer unless their employer has difficulty in retaining their helpers, then maybe they get kicked some paid vacation or maybe some other funds.
At this point, I don't know if you are another one of the Memphis shills, or just plain out to lunch. None of the other contractors that have posted here have posted ANYTHING like the crap you have in the past month in regards to what Ground HELPERS are paid.
I don't believe for a minute you pay your HELPERS anything like you state above - assuming that you are actually a Ground contractor and also not blowing smoke around.
This nonsense about $10-12 an hour is only absurd at best.
No, the other contractors here have CONFIRMED that the typical HELPER is paid at the equivalent hourly wage of between $11 and $11.50/hr with NO benefits whatsoever. If their helpers receive paid vacation, the contractor is being VERY generous. '
I thought about having my college aged daughter run packages this summer, and maybe taking on more packages to break even on that as a (driver). She took an internship instead. But the security and background checks are the same as a mine.
And here is where you give yourself away. No HELPER working a Ground route could even think of footing the bill for their child's post secondary education.
If you are indeed a Ground contractor, just admit that you exist for one reason and one reason only, to give Fred S the ability to get his Ground volume moved for a fraction of the expense that it would otherwise cost him if he had a proper employer-employee business model.
Just as Fred S is taking advantage of a lack of clarity in labor law, you are a willing participant in that scheme that is able to line your pockets at the expense of the people you employ.
Try paying "your" employees the same they would receive if they were employed as Couriers by Express. They'd be paid around $16/hr, be paid from clock in to clock out, get a rather crappy 3.5% 401k match, have some health insurance along with some mediocre dental and vision insurance, and finally a $3000 annual tuition reimbursement benefit. They'd also get about 5% of their gross put into what is called "Portable Pension Plan". Your total expense per hour worked would be in the ball park of $20-22/hr while your employee is on the clock (benefits and all). That just happens to be about double what they typical Ground contractor pays one of their helpers. Why don't you try that and see what it does to your bottom line.
This constant attempt by the contractors to convince everyone that they are indeed 'legit', and are true 'independent contractors' strikes me as just warped thinking on their part. They know damn good and well why their 'business' exists - and the implications of their participating in the FedEx use of the 'contractor model' and what that does to the individuals they use to fulfill their contract.
In the interest of full disclosure, I own FedEx stock through a third party. It was purchased early last autumn, when I knew that FedEx stock price was going to jump with all the plans they had in store that they PUBLICLY announced (press releases, investors' conference calls, announced personnel changes, trends in revenue). I only purchased it because i knew that: no money would be placed into the hands of FedEx by my purchasing and eventually selling the stock, no change in FedEx operating pattern could've been achieved by myself by holding the stock, my purchase was no where near substantial enough to have any impact of corporate operating patterns through shareholder action (voting at a shareholder meeting). I fully intend on making a substantial profit when my sell order kicks in. Given all the years of under-compensation by my former employer, I have no qualms about making up for that by risking my capital and achieving a profit on the eventual sale of that stock.
I'm going to go off on an academic/philosophical tangent, and apply Kant's Categorical Imperative to the Ground contractor model. One of the formulations of the Imperative is: "Act only according to that maxim (principle) whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (all should act likewise) without contradiction".
So, would the world be a better place (collective good increased) if the IC/ISP model of Ground were to be more widely implemented, or curtailed? Would the contractors be equally comfortable acting as either the owner/contractor or as a helper? Would it maximize public good to have a greater utilization of the business model of Ground, or would it be a detriment to public good?
It doesn't take a philosopher to figure out that the Ground business model results in a DECREASE in public good (a very few gain at the considerable expense of others). In this case, Kant states that the individual should abstain from taking the proposed course of action (Ground business model) and seek another alternative which increases public good.
Purchasing and selling stock in a company which derives NO benefit from that transaction and for which the transactor has no ability to modify the behavior of the company in question falls outside the categorical imperative - there is no increase or decrease in public good by either choosing or not choosing to purchase stock. It becomes purely a personal financial decision.
Choosing to participate in the IC/ISP model of Ground through ownership DOES fall within the categorical imperative - the participant willfully chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of those who work for them. There are other alternatives for 'business' opportunity, so a moral judgment is appropriate in this case.