Employee status

[dmac1]

From Politico---
" OAKLAND — A California judge has ordered Uber and Lyft to stop classifying its drivers as independent contractors, handing the state a signal victory in a battle over the gig economy Monday. "

This may be applicable to the ISP at some point who fedex claims is independent yet places massive requirements on them in how they perform. I would even look at the ability of fedex to restrict an ISP manager from access to the ISP trucks and employees, and requiring the ISP to hire drivers as employees as evidence that the ISP is an employee. I see ZERO legal cause for an ISP to be required to use employee drivers if that driver is qualified and approved by fedex anyway. The REAL reason fedex requires the ISP to use 'employee' drivers is so fedex customers continue to believe that the 'fedex' driver who comes into the location or delivers to their home, or their customers is actually a fedex employee. I would bet that at least 20-25% of fedex ground shippers have no idea that they are shipping with drivers and in trucks that fedex claims aren't their trucks and drivers. The warehouse personnel may know from interaction that their ground driver is not an actual fedex employee, but the office personnel likely have no clue of the difference between their UPS driver and their fedex driver.

 

[vantexan]

From Politico---
" OAKLAND — A California judge has ordered Uber and Lyft to stop classifying its drivers as independent contractors, handing the state a signal victory in a battle over the gig economy Monday. "

This may be applicable to the ISP at some point who fedex claims is independent yet places massive requirements on them in how they perform. I would even look at the ability of fedex to restrict an ISP manager from access to the ISP trucks and employees, and requiring the ISP to hire drivers as employees as evidence that the ISP is an employee. I see ZERO legal cause for an ISP to be required to use employee drivers if that driver is qualified and approved by fedex anyway. The REAL reason fedex requires the ISP to use 'employee' drivers is so fedex customers continue to believe that the 'fedex' driver who comes into the location or delivers to their home, or their customers is actually a fedex employee. I would bet that at least 20-25% of fedex ground shippers have no idea that they are shipping with drivers and in trucks that fedex claims aren't their trucks and drivers. The warehouse personnel may know from interaction that their ground driver is not an actual fedex employee, but the office personnel likely have no clue of the difference between their UPS driver and their fedex driver.

But the Ground drivers aren't the contractors. Might be how they get around this.

 

[bacha29]

But the Ground drivers aren't the contractors. Might be how they get around this.

While it only applies to California what you might see are contractors as well as their BC's (business contacts) being banned from driving routes even if they drive their own vehicles .

While it may be a very small rock tossed into a very big litigation lake, It will hopefully be the beginning of the end of this so called (independent contractor) scam, including FXG whose only real reasons for using them have already been firmly established.

 

[AB831]

While it only applies to California what you might see are contractors as well as their BC's (business contacts) being banned from driving routes even if they drive their own vehicles .

While it may be a very small rock tossed into a very big litigation lake, It will hopefully be the beginning of the end of this so called (independent contractor) scam, including FXG whose only real reasons for using them have already been firmly established.

It’s okay, Fat Freddy will just take everyone’s raise and give it to a Republican Congressman in return for his full cooperation.

 

[bacha29]

From Politico---
" OAKLAND — A California judge has ordered Uber and Lyft to stop classifying its drivers as independent contractors, handing the state a signal victory in a battle over the gig economy Monday. "

This may be applicable to the ISP at some point who fedex claims is independent yet places massive requirements on them in how they perform. I would even look at the ability of fedex to restrict an ISP manager from access to the ISP trucks and employees, and requiring the ISP to hire drivers as employees as evidence that the ISP is an employee. I see ZERO legal cause for an ISP to be required to use employee drivers if that driver is qualified and approved by fedex anyway. The REAL reason fedex requires the ISP to use 'employee' drivers is so fedex customers continue to believe that the 'fedex' driver who comes into the location or delivers to their home, or their customers is actually a fedex employee. I would bet that at least 20-25% of fedex ground shippers have no idea that they are shipping with drivers and in trucks that fedex claims aren't their trucks and drivers. The warehouse personnel may know from interaction that their ground driver is not an actual fedex employee, but the office personnel likely have no clue of the difference between their UPS driver and their fedex driver.

Of course. This is when you start. This is when to stop. This is what you drive. This is what you wear. This is where you go. This is how you do it, etc. etc, etc.....And don't let anybody try to tell you differently, for the simple reason that contractors have zero effective legal recourse.

I do believe that FXG will no longer allow people to deliver out of their personal cars. People who never bother to check the coverage limits of their car policies.......until they're in a wreck.

 

[It will be fine]

Of course. This is when you start. This is when to stop. This is what you drive. This is what you wear. This is where you go. This is how you do it, etc. etc, etc.

FedEx says literally none of those things.

 

[vantexan]

It’s okay, Fat Freddy will just take everyone’s raise and give it to a Republican Congressman in return for his full cooperation.

The Congressman from Memphis is a Democrat and he defends FedEx with a passion.

 

[bacha29]

FedEx says literally none of those things.

They don't need to say anything thanks to a contract a federal in California described as "vague and cleverly worded" which in turn provides the contractor thanks to the lack of contract language with no worthwhile and effective legal recourse. .They are your one and only customer and you are completely at the will and discretion of that company.

In fact in your earlier post you commented on how they can and have acted unilaterally and simply take the contract from a guy who gets out of line gives them some back talk and hand it to somebody who will bow down and obey their every command and can't refuse to do it even if there's no contract language that can support that command.

Look, we've been through this before and nobody's buying the image you're trying to sell, that being that of a truly "independent contractor" along with having "built" a business because if Ground had to cede to you the kind of power required in order to transform that image into a reality then there would be no benefit in keeping these so called "independent contractors" around .

 

[bacha29]

The Congressman from Memphis is a Democrat and he defends FedEx with a passion.

So you're implying that if that seat were held by a Republican he would vote independently and not under the control of Fat Freddy?

 

[vantexan]

So you're implying that if that seat were held by a Republican he would vote independently and not under the control of Fat Freddy?

Nope, I'm flat out saying it doesn't matter which party they belong to. If a major corporation is their bread and butter in their district they're going to stand up for them. Unless they are a naive simpleton like AOC who doesn't realize that hurting jobs will eventually cost her that congressional seat.

 

[whenIgetthere]

So you're implying that if that seat were held by a Republican he would vote independently and not under the control of Fat Freddy?

Doesn't matter D or R, they all suck.

 

[AB831]

Nope, I'm flat out saying it doesn't matter which party they belong to. If a major corporation is their bread and butter in their district they're going to stand up for them. Unless they are a naive simpleton like AOC who doesn't realize that hurting jobs will eventually cost her that congressional seat.

Exactly. Whether red or blue, the point is that Fat Freddy knows how to play ball to get lawmakers to pull strings and/or turn a blind eye to his practices.

 

[Operational needs]

Exactly. Whether red or blue, the point is that Fat Freddy knows how to play ball to get lawmakers to pull strings and/or turn a blind eye to his practices.

People in The Big Money Club always stick together.

 

[59 Dano]

Exactly. Whether red or blue, the point is that Fat Freddy knows how to play ball to get lawmakers to pull strings and/or turn a blind eye to his practices.

Whatever gets you through the night, snowflake.

 

[AB831]

Whatever gets you through the night, snowflake.

Lmao

 

[dmac1]

But the Ground drivers aren't the contractors. Might be how they get around this.

My point is the the contractors who hire drivers could be considered as employees possibly under California's efforts to restrict the abuse of the law. Fedex may need to prove the contractor is independent, with the state assuming they are contractors unless fedex proves otherwise. The long term nature of the contract, the fact that work is done in fedex terminals, with fedex setting numerous standards are all in favor of employee status. In the past, it has always been the other way around, with the burden of proof placed on the 'contractor' to prove employee status. Ownership of the vehicles is completely irrelevant, but an employee would need to be reimbursed for business use, which is what fedex used to do with the vehicle allowance, mileage pay. There is NO legal issue with employees using personally owned vehicles in relation to their status as an employee. The pay contractors receive could be looked at like it is a dept budget, with the contractor as a manager of a dision. It isn't a big stretch considering all the requirements on the work structure fedex puts on contractors. If fedex ever really wants to be out from under a cloud over status, they need to just pay a per package rate, maybe with zones based on distance from terminal, and stop all the demands they place on contractors. Contractors now are more like franchisees than truly independent contractors.

 

[bacha29]

My point is the the contractors who hire drivers could be considered as employees possibly under California's efforts to restrict the abuse of the law. Fedex may need to prove the contractor is independent, with the state assuming they are contractors unless fedex proves otherwise. The long term nature of the contract, the fact that work is done in fedex terminals, with fedex setting numerous standards are all in favor of employee status. In the past, it has always been the other way around, with the burden of proof placed on the 'contractor' to prove employee status. Ownership of the vehicles is completely irrelevant, but an employee would need to be reimbursed for business use, which is what fedex used to do with the vehicle allowance, mileage pay. There is NO legal issue with employees using personally owned vehicles in relation to their status as an employee. The pay contractors receive could be looked at like it is a dept budget, with the contractor as a manager of a dision. It isn't a big stretch considering all the requirements on the work structure fedex puts on contractors. If fedex ever really wants to be out from under a cloud over status, they need to just pay a per package rate, maybe with zones based on distance from terminal, and stop all the demands they place on contractors. Contractors now are more like franchisees than truly independent contractors.

If in the near term the legal hounds have Fat Freddy surrounded and biting at his heels I think one of the first things he'll do is he'll make every contractor obtain their own DOT and state PUC numbers rather then continuing to have them haul under his own number.
Going forward he could very well end up having to prove once and for all that the intent is to create value and equity for contractors and to promote small business development within a completely autonomous contractor operating environment. And that in and of itself will be a very tall order because all contractors exist for is to provide Fat Freddy with trucking and labor at wages so low he would be too embarrassed to pay himself and to serve as a firewall against the introduction of a union represented workforce.

The only thing that has held the entire network together over the years is his ability to maintain a very high level of strict command and control over his labor force which does indeed include FXG contractors.........And don't believe what IWBF and others are trying to tell you....All command and control rests with Fat Freddy and what little decision making power they actually have is petty and purely symbolic because again,........they haul under his DOT authority.

 

[59 Dano]

Fedex may need to prove the contractor is independent, with the state assuming they are contractors unless fedex proves otherwise.

FedEx replies that the contractors are independent unless the state proves otherwise.