Could Franchise Labor Ruling Effect FedEx Ground Franchise Model?

[werenotthepostoffice]

FedEx denies any wrongdoing and will vigorously defend itself in court...and lose.

It is cheaper,at the present time,for FedEx to litigate any of these cases even though they lose. Until FedEx is forced,by the SCOTUS,to conduct business,like UPS,they will continue with their current business model.

 

[OUMick]

So do you own routes or not? Your saying that you did not invest in routes and don't own a franchise. So what the hell are you talking about?

How do you not understand when I say I never invested in the Fedex routes? Good lord man.

I have looked at a few different sets for sale. Found the owners to be full of on their financials. I'll keep looking. I don't see any massive shifts in the way corporations have to run their businesses in the near future.

 

[Bounty]

How do you not understand when I say I never invested in the Fedex routes? Good lord man.

I have looked at a few different sets for sale. Found the owners to be full of on their financials. I'll keep looking. I don't see any massive shifts in the way corporations have to run their businesses in the near future.

I did not see where you said you didn't invest in routes until one of your recent posts. Since your a genius, I know you don't need any advice, but be careful investing in this. There has to be better opportunities out there. This is NOT your own business. X changes rules anytime they want. Also the scam will be challenged

 

[bbsam]

How do you not understand when I say I never invested in the Fedex routes? Good lord man.

I have looked at a few different sets for sale. Found the owners to be full of on their financials. I'll keep looking. I don't see any massive shifts in the way corporations have to run their businesses in the near future.

I tend to agree.

It's finally coming to a head--the true scope of the fight some have against contracting. This isn't a fight between X and disgruntled contractors. This is across a wide array of fields and models. I don't personally see contracting going g away, but I could see and even believe it's necessary to pressure these companies into more taking more responsibility toward their "co-employees".

 

[Bounty]

I tend to agree.

It's finally coming to a head--the true scope of the fight some have against contracting. This isn't a fight between X and disgruntled contractors. This is across a wide array of fields and models. I don't personally see contracting going g away, but I could see and even believe it's necessary to pressure these companies into more taking more responsibility toward their "co-employees".

I'm surprised to hear this from you. I've never heard of co-employees. If that happens it will get very complicated.

 

[bbsam]

I'm surprised to hear this from you. I've never heard of co-employees. If that happens it will get very complicated.

Did you not read the article?

 

[Bounty]

Did you not read the article?

I did read it. Usually you just deny what you read and hear and blindly defend your boss.

 

[OUMick]

I'm surprised to hear this from you. I've never heard of co-employees. If that happens it will get very complicated.

More than very complicated. Our labor system is not set up for co-employees. It would take decades of passing laws to get ready for this.

 

[bbsam]

I'm surprised to hear this from you. I've never heard of co-employees. If that happens it will get very complicated.

If you read it, then how could you not have heard of co-employees?

And you haven't heard me defend X. You have heard me say the same thing over and over: If you don't like the model, then change the law.

This seems to lean in that direction.

 

[It will be fine]

If you read it, then how could you not have heard of co-employees?

And you haven't heard me defend X. You have heard me say the same thing over and over: If you don't like the model, then change the law.

This seems to lean in that direction.

According to the dissenters this decision flies in the face of decades of settled law. When it comes time to pass laws to address this, I'd bet on large corps outspending the teamsters pretty easily.

 

[Bounty]

If you read it, then how could you not have heard of co-employees?

And you haven't heard me defend X. You have heard me say the same thing over and over: If you don't like the model, then change the law.

This seems to lean in that direction.

I have never heard co-employees before reading the article.

 

[Bounty]

According to the dissenters this decision flies in the face of decades of settled law. When it comes time to pass laws to address this, I'd bet on large corps outspending the teamsters pretty easily.

You better hope so. Gotta keep the scam alive.

 

[Bounty]

More than very complicated. Our labor system is not set up for co-employees. It would take decades of passing laws to get ready for this.

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.

 

[It will be fine]

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.

That's not entirely true. I've been at this a long time, but I have bought routes. Just bought some more actually.

 

[Brown287]

You guys really are looking at this the wrong way. Yes the teamsters and UPS have wanted the FDX Ground models destroyed for a long time, due to their own interests. However the governments angle in this ruling is tax revenue. It's not U.S. vs FDX but U.S. vs all contractors. Talk to any CPA and they'll be the first to tell you how rampant the tax fraud is with all of these so called contactor set ups. Yes FDX has deep pockets but not even they can outrun this foe.

 

[Route 66]

I pretty sure I match up with pretty favorably with bounty.

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

 

[OUMick]

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.

The thing that makes me hesitant in buying routes is the form of pay. Everyone seems to pay by the day. I know in my state that is illegal. I've only looked at routes out of state and I'm nervous of their labor laws. There is a way to run these routes and still take care of employees and keep a decent fleet. You won't maximize profits but you will minimize head aches. I'm not looking to strike gold just invest in something that will give a decent return and slow down my hair turning gray.

 

[Bounty]

The thing that makes me hesitant in buying routes is the form of pay. Everyone seems to pay by the day. I know in my state that is illegal. I've only looked at routes out of state and I'm nervous of their labor laws. There is a way to run these routes and still take care of employees and keep a decent fleet. You won't maximize profits but you will minimize head aches. I'm not looking to strike gold just invest in something that will give a decent return and slow down my hair turning gray.

You still have hair, this will make you bald

 

[It will be fine]

You guys really are looking at this the wrong way. Yes the teamsters and UPS have wanted the FDX Ground models destroyed for a long time, due to their own interests. However the governments angle in this ruling is tax revenue. It's not U.S. vs FDX but U.S. vs all contractors. Talk to any CPA and they'll be the first to tell you how rampant the tax fraud is with all of these so called contactor set ups. Yes FDX has deep pockets but not even they can outrun this foe.

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.

 

[TUT]

Please enlighten me on the brainwashing.

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.