RENEGOTIATION ISP INS-OUTS

[Exec32]

Let's try something new. How about actually helping one another out for the betterment of the working force, the contractor and their employees.
How? Well, can you guys with experience with ISP Provide some information on the ins and outs, pros&cons of ISP. I understand some of you have gone through renegotiations;
1. What does FedEx insist on getting, or not willing to budge on?
2. if there was something you would have done different, what is it and why do you think it put you on a bad position.
3. Are you factoring in administrative cost? Is fedex?
4. has anybody been explained what the annual fee $ should be attributed to,.,,,, HR, CUSTOMER SERVICE, QA or other costs for your company.
5. what can I expect from my fellow contractor, will there still be bottom feeders willing to do FedEx dirty work.
6 have you had a contractor refuse the final offer? What was the outcome?
IN THE END IF WE CAN NEGOTIATE FROM A STRONGER POSITION, WITH VALUABLE INFORMATION, IT WILL HELP THE POSITON OF US ALL!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Wouldn't that be considered collusion?

 

[bacha29]

Wouldn't that be considered collusion?

It's called creating a data base containing market information shared by companies operating in the same space. And you can't tell me that that is in violation of X's gag order it calls a "confidentiality agreement".

 

[Turdferguson]

Wouldn't that be considered collusion?

No Dan it's not.
Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3]

 

[It will be fine]

Short answer, the negotiator is a liar. He will lie to you during every conversation and say things aren't possible so you accept a worse deal and he lines his own pockets. Keep going back and forth until the deadline.

 

[bacha29]

Short answer, the negotiator is a liar. He will lie to you during every conversation and say things aren't possible so you accept a worse deal and he lines his own pockets. Keep going back and forth until the deadline.

Right on man. Indications are that you are so called " negotiating " with a skilled negotiator who is on some type of incentive plan that will get him a bonus based on how low a deal he can get the contractor to take. The multi routes all wanted rid of the single routes so they could get their routes for nothing but didn't realize that they were the multi's best friend . We all know what comes after lying and that's intimidation so be prepared for a lot of that going forward.

 

[Cactus]

Wouldn't that be considered collusion?

Uh yeah........all the contractors are gonna commit mutiny on Fred.

Just don't tell anybody. OK?

 

[bacha29]

Uh yeah........all the contractors are gonna commit mutiny on Fred.

Just don't tell anybody. OK?

They are required to sign a confidentiality agreement binding them to not to talk to other contractor's. So how is Greater Leader going to enforce that? Tap their phones? Make them wear wires? Put cameras in their bedrooms? No question that provision will be challenged in court.

 

[Cactus]

They are required to sign a confidentiality agreement binding them to not to talk to other contractor's. So how is Greater Leader going to enforce that? Tap their phones? Make them wear wires? Put cameras in their bedrooms? No question that provision will be challenged in court.

Between not being able to have a lawyer present when signing papers and this confidentiality crap, it's a wonder they can find any contractors willing to put up with this BS nonsense.

 

[realbrown1]

Wouldn't that be considered collusion?

No.

 

[Bounty]

Between not being able to have a lawyer present when signing papers and this confidentiality crap, it's a wonder they can find any contractors willing to put up with this BS nonsense.

Why can't a contractor have a lawyer present. Makes you wonder what laws are being broken when your negotiating.

 

[bacha29]

Between not being able to have a lawyer present when signing papers and this confidentiality crap, it's a wonder they can find any contractors willing to put up with this BS nonsense.

Good question Cactus. There were several conditions that kept Ground going in recent years that may in the future not have such a strong impact. (1.) The ability of X to do the legal equivalent of welding patches over the original business model. After a while there may not be anything to weld to. (2). The introduction of the 'investor class". Rate increases combined with volume growth and the opportunity to acquire single work area contractor's (sra's) route for little or nothing made it a attractive business to get into. (3). The ability to get former sra's to run their routes as employees as well as find some other slug willing to endure the humiliation of doing the same job , at the same pace as the average UPS driver for a compensation package that is on average one fifth that of a UPS driver. If the investor class can continue to operate with these conditions in place and is willing to forfeit their right to due process such as having their attorneys and or industrial engineers negotiate in their behalf the investor class will remain in the space and in doing so preserving contractor equity a present levels. On the other hand if investor class returns begin to fall to the point where their equity is threatened reducing their willingness to put up with X's outrageous demands and behavior then an entire new chapter begins.

 

[STFXG]

Between not being able to have a lawyer present when signing papers and this confidentiality crap, it's a wonder they can find any contractors willing to put up with this BS nonsense.

Why? That's the least of the problems. We can take our contracts to our lawyers for review prior to signing them. Why would one need to be there to hold our hand when signing it?
An NDA makes sense for them. Why would they want individual businesses to get together and work against them?

 

[bacha29]

Why? That's the least of the problems. We can take our contracts to our lawyers for review prior to signing them. Why would one need to be there to hold our hand when signing it?
An NDA makes sense for them. Why would they want individual businesses to get together and work against them?

Yes you can take the contract to an attorney but all he can and will do is to point out the trappings that you already know exist. Keep in mind X has a barracks full of outside attorneys and logistics experts protecting it's interests yet denies anyone wanting to do business with it the same due process in order to make certain that it's terms and only it's terms becomes the final contract terms.

 

[Cactus]

Why? That's the least of the problems. We can take our contracts to our lawyers for review prior to signing them. Why would one need to be there to hold our hand when signing it?
An NDA makes sense for them. Why would they want individual businesses to get together and work against them?

So you don't think X would try and "funny business" right before the contracts are signed? If that's your way of thinking, I'll hand you the rifle so you shoot yourself in the foot. Also you seem to think it's fine for X to have full control over what is supposedly your business while you have very little.

MFE is right. You're just Fred's mechanics and overseers.

 

[bbsam]

Yes you can take the contract to an attorney but all he can and will do is to point out the trappings that you already know exist. Keep in mind X has a barracks full of outside attorneys and logistics experts protecting it's interests yet denies anyone wanting to do business with it the same due process in order to make certain that it's terms and only it's terms becomes the final contract terms.

Exactly. So what good is having a lawyer sitting next to me in negotiations? Won't make X approach the process differently. It will still come down to the same agreement between parties or the two parties will fail to come to an agreement.

 

[bacha29]

Exactly. So what good is having a lawyer sitting next to me in negotiations? Won't make X approach the process differently. It will still come down to the same agreement between parties or the two parties will fail to come to an agreement.[/QUite . So therefore it's an admission on your part that the so called " negotiation" is just another scam and an exercise to that effect with you the contractor having nothing to negotiate with.

 

[bbsam]

Ummm. Ask around. I've always maintained the their negotiations are a joke. What I am again reiterating is that after all the lawsuits and settlements, X remains strongly in control of operations with absolutely no desire to give up any control it does not absolutely have to within the written boundaries of the law. And once again i will say that if somebody is going to get real change, it will come either because the law changes or becaus X sees some financial gain for themselves in making the change. Contractors sign what should be easily proven an "unconscionable contract" and in time I assume that challenge and ruling will be made. What then? Simple. Legal writes up a new agreement to conform to the letter of the law.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Suppose you had your lawyer review and sign off only to have X change the terms during negotiation. Would you have the right to then bring those revised documents back to your lawyer or is it "sign now"?

 

[dmac1]

Ummm. Ask around. I've always maintained the their negotiations are a joke. What I am again reiterating is that after all the lawsuits and settlements, X remains strongly in control of operations with absolutely no desire to give up any control it does not absolutely have to within the written boundaries of the law. And once again i will say that if somebody is going to get real change, it will come either because the law changes or becaus X sees some financial gain for themselves in making the change. Contractors sign what should be easily proven an "unconscionable contract" and in time I assume that challenge and ruling will be made. What then? Simple. Legal writes up a new agreement to conform to the letter of the law.

Except that fedex has already been proven in court to operate outside the boundaries of the law until someone with enough money comes along to fight them in court. I don't believe that fedex is now operating withing the law, and has no intention of doing so. Anyone who really thinks that fedex is operating within the letter of the law is naive. They are skirting the letter of the law for as long as they can get away with it.