to all the DUCKS - ISP/IC
- Thread starter Exec32
- Start date
First things first. Show the Agreement to be "unconscionable" in both form and application.
Your exactly what X wants, someone who is blind to the fact that they are being taken advantage of. Anything X does you defend, I don't know if you do it just for argument sake or are you really that much of a fool. Even iwbf is starting to see the reality of the scam.
You, sir, are a complete idiot.
I am doing exactly the opposite. I am describing the road map to the eventual challenge to the CSP model.
Showing this contract to be unconscionable should be a slam dunk.
Yet you signed it......due diligence.....idiot
Of course I signed it. I've signed them for 22 years. I'll play along until it changes again when the next court challenge comes.
The thing is, you can't do "due diligence". The contract means nothing until they come along after and tell you what it means. It's a pain in the ass and one day I guess it will bite them in the ass. Until then, I'm not all that upset by my situation.
Or, it might bite you in the ass.
You have a selective memory, you forget your past post about "due diligence".
You don't negotiate whether you think you do or not. The longer you hang on the less your business will be worth. Enjoy your situation.
That's the nature of every investment. They go up, they go down.
For the time being think of what my first terminal manager told me. " I admit it. It's a rotten deal but you signed it. But I am going to tell you how to survive. Keep borrowed money to a minimum and limited your exposure to risk and to variable costs to only that which you cannot avoid". Wise words indeed.
Not afraid of borrowed money. Bankruptcy only hurts a little while.
When he spoke of keeping borrowed money to minimum he was talking about the risk level which was high due primarily to a contract that wasn't worth the paper it was written on . I happened to see a contractor today and asked him how it was going. He spoke to the growing unwillingness on the part of both he and the other contractors at his barn to throw unlimited amounts of borrowed money at this given the growing uncertainty surrounding future revenue streams.
It's not the language, it's their actions that have cost them these lawsuits. Like I said before there would have to be monumental change, and cultural shift within FedEx to avoid these suits. That's not gonna happen because they know they have to possess an element of control to meet the demands of customers and compete with UPS. THE ALTERNATIVE is to seek out REAL COMPETENT businesses to do the work in its entirety without assistance from x, but that's to hard, easier to pay lawsuits, at least for the time being.
Had an interesting discussion on the "Gig economy" in NPR's "Onpoint" this morning. One of the guests pointed out that companies are beginning to "liberate" themselves from the social constructs that came about after World War I I. Contract work is growing rapidly and there are a lot of people who like it, possibly not seeing the future ramifications. I was glad to see the conversation going on but I think we are a long, long way from a substantial change. Probably going to be a generation completely screwed.
People, according to my contract a it reads literally, it is a policy manual for FedEx management, not a contract. Many addendums have nothing to do with physically delivering a package. There are clauses throughout that if needed gives you the right to confront FedEx on their actions, or lack there of. Especially wo
I stand corrected it's more their actions, the language presents problems also
EX you are right and so is BSAM. Companies want the economy of contracting while insisting on maintaining the same level of command and control that would come with an employed workforce. They along with X wants it both ways and the ongoing battle is to continue having it both ways and many have the money to pursue it. With X's case in order to have a pickup and delivery network that is consistent nationwide they realize now that they have to have that high level of command and control but keeping it in the future will be costly. Furthermore more contractors as well as those interested in becoming one are starting to call into question the growing demand for more capital to be put at risk to be controlled completely by someone else no say about anything, all for the privilege of running along behind that company mopping up after it.
