Express handing resi deliveries to Ground

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Hey don’t be dissing on me!!!
(the internet always adds 200 lbs to my figure)

You are a thin looking 400 pounder ..

 

[bbsam]

What about the living body inside the woman’s body?

I don’t think he has the right to run for president.

 

[Serf]

How about the healthy weight people that clog their arteries eating red meat?

Or the people who are otherwise healthy until an all vegan ethical diet gives them a stroke.

 

[Working4the1%]

By a bunch of liberals. Let's revisit Roe v Wade with this SCOTUS.

You vote REP and I will Vote DEM then let the chips fall. Let’s get this thread back on track. Any new info from Greensboro??

 

[dmac1]

You are partially correct. Kelly was settled. The settlement set forth the relationship between contractors and FedEx and that drivers were not FedEx employees. The case was dismissed with prejudice. There is no legal barrier to the FXG model.

“The court hereby DISMISSES with prejudice this action, specifically including the Released Claims, with each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees, except as provided below. The court incorporates the Class Action Settlement Agreement [Doc. No. 2650-1] by reference in this order.
As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, "Released Claims" means all claims, actions, causes of action, administrative claims, demands, debts, damages, penalties, costs, interest, attorneys' fees, obligations, judgments, expenses, or liabilities, in law or in equity, whether now known or unknown, contingent or absolute, which: (i) are owned or held by the plaintiffs and class members and/or by their affiliated business entities (if any), or any of them, as against Releasees, or any of them; (ii) arise under any statutory or common law claim which was asserted in this lawsuit or, whether or not asserted, could have been brought arising out of or related to the allegations of misclassification of plaintiffs and class members as independent contractors set forth in the operative complaint; and (iii) pertain to any time in the Release Period. The Released Claims include any known or unknown claims for damages and injunctive relief. The Released Claims include but are not limited to claims under The New York Labor Law § 193 et seq., the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and common law claims for fraud, breach of contract, rescission, unjust enrichment, or declaratory judgment. The release excludes claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Further definitions of "Released Claims" can be found in Sec. I, para. S of the Settlement Agreement [Doc. No. 2650-1].

"Releasees" means: "(a) [FedEx Ground], and its consolidated subsidiaries, successors, predecessors, assigns, affiliates, parent companies, shareholders, officers, directors, agents, insurers, attorneys, and employees; and (b) [FedEx Ground's] past, present, and future shareholders, officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, and insurers." (Settlement Agreement, Sec I, para. T). "Release Period" refers to the time period from October 27, 1998 through April 30, 2016. (Settlement Agreement, Sec. I, para. U). [Doc. No. 2650-1].

D. Upon the entry of this order, the plaintiffs and all class members shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against all Releasees. "Class members" include "All persons who: 1) entered into a FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as OP-149 and Form OP-149-RES); 2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employment absences) from October 27, 1998 through October 15, 2007 to provide package pick-up and delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of New York." [Doc. No. 2650-1]. To the extent additional individuals are identified who qualify as class members under the terms of the settlement agreement, they will be bound by this order.

E. Upon the entry of this final approval order, the plaintiffs and all class members are barred and enjoined from asserting, filing, maintaining, or prosecuting, or in any way participating in the assertion, filing, maintenance or prosecution, of any action asserting any Released Claim against any of the Releasees, as set forth in and in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Nothing in this order shall in any way impair or restrict the right of the parties to enforce the terms of the settlement.”

Wrong- the current contract has NEVER been ruled on. Fedex made changes- but the courts NEVER said those changes are satisfactory or not. It has to be challenged before a judge can rule on it. And releasing claims has nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. There could be a legal barrier in the future if someone wants to claim that their drivers are actually Fedex's and their co-employee, based on fedex having so much control over who the ISP can hire, and just the fact that an ISP must use employee drivers instead of subcontractors. A truly independent business can not limit how its subcontractors do their job, as long as the final result is satisfactory. It is not a business- it is a contract to manage what are really fedex co-employees in my opinion. The contract that fell under the settlements was not the same contract it is now.

 

[dmac1]

And Even linehaul has issues and I don't know if this has progresses, or if fedex settled this. ---


Corley v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

FILED: MARCH 8, 2019 ◆§ 5:19-CV-00429

• Read Complaint
A proposed class action alleges FedEx truck drivers subject to Linehaul Contractor Operating Agreements are misclassified as independent contractors.

DEFENDANT(S)
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

LAW(S)
Fair Labor Standards Act California Labor Code

STATE(S)
California


A class action removed to California district court alleges FedEx has misclassified truck drivers subject to Linehaul Contractor Operating Agreements as independent contractors, depriving the workers of proper wages, benefits, and recoupment for operating costs.

According to the lawsuit, defendant FedEx Ground Package System, in “a scheme to increase their profits,” blatantly misclassified the plaintiff and similarly situated truck drivers despite the fact that the company “completely controls the overall operation of its business.” This includes, the suit elaborates, coordination with customers, price negotiations, the determination of delivery times, and the provision of workers. Moreover, FedEx, according to the case, controls linehaul truckers’ assignments, schedules, customer service standards, equipment, logging devices, and trucks.

Overlaying the plaintiff’s misclassification claims are allegations that FedEx causes linehaul truckers to absorb “thousands of dollars of costs,” leaving the workers with limited take-home pay, due to its alleged failure to abide by state and federal labor laws. The lawsuit alleges FedEx has failed to provide the supposedly misclassified truck drivers with workers’ compensation benefits, notwithstanding the taxes it would owe California had the drivers been classified as bona fide employees.

 

[dmac1]

And another one by drivers for ground ISP-- https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2017/06/fed-ex.pdf


Under this one, drivers are claiming fedex is the real employer and they are due overtime pay due to vehicles under 10,000 lbs. But if they are successful in being reclassified as fedex employees, it would apply to all drivers, except drivers in larger vehicles would not be subject to the overtime rules. Simply driving a larger vehicle would not make them any less fedex employees.

 

[dmac1]

If, under that lawsuit, they are found to be fedex employees, it would simplify any attempt at unionizing.
Simply firing the ISP would not solve the issue of one ISP's drivers trying to join a union or form their own. Now, a vote of an entire terminal could take place.

Different state laws will apply, so it will end up like the earlier case with different states being affected differently.

 

[Maui]

Wrong- the current contract has NEVER been ruled on. Fedex made changes- but the courts NEVER said those changes are satisfactory or not. It has to be challenged before a judge can rule on it. And releasing claims has nothing to do with whether something is legal or not. There could be a legal barrier in the future if someone wants to claim that their drivers are actually Fedex's and their co-employee, based on fedex having so much control over who the ISP can hire, and just the fact that an ISP must use employee drivers instead of subcontractors. A truly independent business can not limit how its subcontractors do their job, as long as the final result is satisfactory. It is not a business- it is a contract to manage what are really fedex co-employees in my opinion. The contract that fell under the settlements was not the same contract it is now.

There will always be the possibility of lawsuits. The relationship was solidified in the class and the parties agreed that drivers were not co-employees.

For an action to proceed there would need to be material differences in the relationship. What could one (or a class) claim as materially different?

 

[bacha29]

And another one by drivers for ground ISP-- https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2017/06/fed-ex.pdf


Under this one, drivers are claiming fedex is the real employer and they are due overtime pay due to vehicles under 10,000 lbs. But if they are successful in being reclassified as fedex employees, it would apply to all drivers, except drivers in larger vehicles would not be subject to the overtime rules. Simply driving a larger vehicle would not make them any less fedex employees.

This is an interesting one. If the ISP's were not named class members of the multi state class action settled a few years ago and represent an entirely new entity and relationship with Fedex the question will be whether the terms of the multi state suit are applicable in this case?

 

[dmac1]

A long essay about why the the government should be your caretaker (so sad). Your story about your accident when you were 56 does not make sense. Fed Ex Express never had health insurance with a 7,500 deductable. Please expand on that story if it was true. I just beleive people should be able to be self sufficient and stop relying on government handouts. Also we as a society should limit care to people who do not care about themselfs. (Smoking,Alcohol and Drug abuse) These are all self resposibility attributes

You prove again what a fool you can be by trying to think. I never was a fedex employee, never claimed to be, and wasn't even working for Fedex at the time. You drive on public roads, and people who pay no taxes drive on public roads. That's socialism.

 

[dmac1]

There will always be the possibility of lawsuits. The relationship was solidified in the class and the parties agreed that drivers were not co-employees.

For an action to proceed there would need to be material differences in the relationship. What could one (or a class) claim as materially different?

Wrong again. People who weren't working for fedex at the time and/or didn't sign on, or opted out, aren't covered by that agreement. That's like saying because Trump signed an NDA with a porn star, none of his other sex partners can complain or go public. Just nonsense.

 

[It will be fine]

You prove again what a fool you can be by trying to think. I never was a fedex employee, never claimed to be, and wasn't even working for Fedex at the time. You drive on public roads, and people who pay no taxes drive on public roads. That's socialism.

Didn’t you claim to be a Fedex employee as a named defendant in a lawsuit?

 

[dmac1]

This is an interesting one. If the ISP's were not named class members of the multi state class action settled a few years ago and represent an entirely new entity and relationship with Fedex the question will be whether the terms of the multi state suit are applicable in this case?

Signing a contract as an LLP, or incorporating is a different person on the contract than the one who signed as an individual.

 

[dmac1]

Didn’t you claim to be a Fedex employee as a named defendant in a lawsuit?

FEDEX was the defendant. I was a plaintiff.

I claimed employee status in a lawsuit and in state court seeking unemployment benefits while fedex claimed I was a contractor. I was a so-called 'contractor' and a named plaintiff in the national suit filed in 2006, after deciding whether to sue on my own or as part of the class action. I won my case for unemployment benefits and got about $23k for that plus ~$40k in the class action. Fedex took it to the states highest court and couldn't win and that is when the attorneys deciding on whether to join the class action contacted me. This was after I told fedex I would stick to the contract when they tried to force me to cover some one else's contracted area 50 miles away from the area I was already serving. I had operated a supplemental van during peak in addition to my two contracted routes, and they knew I had an extra vehicle. So I know from my winning experience that simply having multiple routes and hiring people to drive for you doesn't mean you are not still an employee, depending on state laws. It was after that when I was in an accident, with what Trump thinks is great insurance. No coverage at all until you spend the deductible. Even bronze insurance level today is better. Obamacare changed EVERY plan- not just those in the exchanges so now everyone gets at least something minimal if they need it.

 

[Maui]

Wrong again. People who weren't working for fedex at the time and/or didn't sign on, or opted out, aren't covered by that agreement. That's like saying because Trump signed an NDA with a porn star, none of his other sex partners can complain or go public. Just nonsense.

We will disagree. FedEx’s relationship is with the contractor, not drivers. And all who qualified under the class ARE bound by Kelly unless they met the timely opt-out. Are there any outstanding cases from timely opt-outs?

Do you assert that FedEx exerts more control in the ISP model? Can FedEx fire drivers directly and without cause? Come on.

 

[bacha29]

We will disagree. FedEx’s relationship is with the contractor, not drivers. And all who qualified under the class ARE bound by Kelly.

Do you assert that FedEx exerts more control in the ISP model? Can FedEx fire drivers directly and without cause? Come on.

The contract for all intents and purposes is a supplier agreement. The contractor supply's trucks and labor to X . However the drivers answer directly to X wear X branded uniforms and must comply with all X policies and disciplines nearly identical to what their own employees are subjected to. If X wants somebody fired despite the fact that the individual is on the contractor's payroll , believe me he's gone.
As long as X's DOT numbers and brand are on the side of the truck and the only thing going in them is X bar coded freight that so called 'Independent Service Provider is independent in name only.

 

[Maui]

The contract for all intents and purposes is a supplier agreement. The contractor supply's trucks and labor to X . However the drivers answer directly to X wear X branded uniforms and must comply with all X policies and disciplines nearly identical to what their own employees are subjected to. If X wants somebody fired despite the fact that the individual is on the contractor's payroll , believe me he's gone.
As long as X's DOT numbers and brand are on the side of the truck and the only thing going in them is X bar coded freight that so called 'Independent Service Provider is independent in name only.

If all that is true, then I can certainly see the argument for co-employment.

Is that true?

 

[bacha29]

If all that is true, then I can certainly see the argument for co-employment.

Is that true?

Because it's a unilaterally drafted and implemented contract whose terms are vague ambiguous and in no way shape or form binding upon Fedex they can do whatever they damn well please. Furthermore there's no governing legal authority in place with the power to make it binding. Yes, you could try to take them to arbitration if you wanted to but guess who reserves the right to decide who will sit on the arbitration board?

 

[It will be fine]

If all that is true, then I can certainly see the argument for co-employment.

Is that true?

No, it’s not true. There’s an argument for co-employment but I don’t think it’s a good one. Compensation varies dramatically within terminals for drivers. It’d be hard to prove that FedEx controls the wages with that fact. FedEx sets a minimum standard for drivers but if you aren’t a convicted criminal I can get you approved to drive.