Fed ex to have casuals deliver resi e2s

Mr.Speed

Member
Our senior manager announced that they will be hiring casual employees to deliver residential deliveries to reduce labor costs .Two full time routes have already been absorbed and they plan on taking down more as people leave and retire.This is in metro New York area.Has anyone else heard this.
 

Operational needs

Virescit Vulnere Virtus
Our senior manager announced that they will be hiring casual employees to deliver residential deliveries to reduce labor costs .Two full time routes have already been absorbed and they plan on taking down more as people leave and retire.This is in metro New York area.Has anyone else heard this.
I wonder how long those casuals will stick around when they find out that the permanent people have better pay and have benefits?
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Someone realized that paying a topped-out courier to deliver the lowest priority and lowest yielding freight wasn't a bright idea when you can get the same work done for $10/hour less and no benefits.
 

Star B

White Lightening
last time i checked the great meltdowns with CONSUMER outrage wasn't because of FO/P1/SO freight. It was P2/XS freight that overloaded the system.....
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Precisely.

Glad you admit that the hourly employee never really mattered.
The alternative was no raise (which is the fate bestowed upon many of us salaried types), layoffs, suspension of 401k contributions, and charging through the nose for health insurance, for starters.

You're too stubborn to realize it, but there are dozens of other measures that could be taken that would be more effective, be effective sooner, and at a greater expense to the hourly employee. There are also large shareholders who are raising holy hell because those measures aren't being taken.
 

Star B

White Lightening
um, no raise was the fate bestowed upon us also. that paltry 2% doesn't mean crap when the insurance goes up.

The only reason mgmt doesn't do any/all of what you suggested is that if they do it too quickly, the union threat will become real again.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
last time i checked the great meltdowns with CONSUMER outrage wasn't because of FO/P1/SO freight. It was P2/XS freight that overloaded the system.....
The last great consumer meltdown was peak 2013. Plenty has changed since then.
 

dezguy

Well-Known Member
They've been using contract, ground type employees here for a few years now.

Basically on call, paid by the stop, use your own vehicle, no vacation or benefits, get hurt and thanks for your help, we no longer need you.

They give these poor people the idea that they will get hired on eventually when they have no intention of hiring them. People stick around for a month or two and then realize they've been duped. Start over and repeat.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
They've been using contract, ground type employees here for a few years now.

Basically on call, paid by the stop, use your own vehicle, no vacation or benefits, get hurt and thanks for your help, we no longer need you.

They give these poor people the idea that they will get hired on eventually when they have no intention of hiring them. People stick around for a month or two and then realize they've been duped. Start over and repeat.
Maybe they should try contracting that work out to actual package delivery companies that are already delivering in those areas, but where might they find such companies?
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
um, no raise was the fate bestowed upon us also. that paltry 2% doesn't mean crap when the insurance goes up.
Um, you got 2% more than many others in the company got, and their insurance goes up just like yours.

The only reason mgmt doesn't do any/all of what you suggested is that if they do it too quickly, the union threat will become real again.
LOL, keep dreaming. There is no union threat as long as Express is covered under the RLA. The reason they don't do that stuff is because these decisions are made by the old guard. The old guard, whether you think they're good or they're bad, are purple bleeders AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM LARGER INVESTORS HAVE WITH THEM.
 

dezguy

Well-Known Member
Maybe they should try contracting that work out to actual package delivery companies that are already delivering in those areas, but where might they find such companies?
They don't want to be locked into anything. From what I understand, talking to the people they dupe into this, it basically states FedEx will use them only when they need them and for as long as work is available.

I'm sure you, as a businessman, would want better terms than that. Easier to get desperate people to agree to your terms than someone who is running their own business and wants terms that are beneficial to their business.
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
Maybe they should try contracting that work out to actual package delivery companies that are already delivering in those areas, but where might they find such companies?
That wouldn't save them much. I think ground owners should do the same with extreme rural deliveries. Pay someone with a 60 mpg microcar to meet the van/truck driver in town, give them $10 to drive the 20 miles out to the homestead.
 

Nolimitz

Well-Known Member
The alternative was no raise (which is the fate bestowed upon many of us salaried types), layoffs, suspension of 401k contributions, and charging through the nose for health insurance, for starters.

You're too stubborn to realize it, but there are dozens of other measures that could be taken that would be more effective, be effective sooner, and at a greater expense to the hourly employee. There are also large shareholders who are raising holy hell because those measures aren't being taken.
F the share holers
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
They don't want to be locked into anything. From what I understand, talking to the people they dupe into this, it basically states FedEx will use them only when they need them and for as long as work is available.

I'm sure you, as a businessman, would want better terms than that. Easier to get desperate people to agree to your terms than someone who is running their own business and wants terms that are beneficial to their business.
For someone retired, who lives nearby, it might be the ideal extra income. For a lot of people, even an extra 40-50 bucks a month means a lot, and they may not physically be able to work more than an hour or two. I have all kinds of back problems, and can;t drive for more than a couple hours a day, and really not even every day. I don't need the money myself, but something like that would be easier than delivering groceries, or driving for Uber or Lyft.
 

dezguy

Well-Known Member
For someone retired, who lives nearby, it might be the ideal extra income. For a lot of people, even an extra 40-50 bucks a month means a lot, and they may not physically be able to work more than an hour or two. I have all kinds of back problems, and can;t drive for more than a couple hours a day, and really not even every day. I don't need the money myself, but something like that would be easier than delivering groceries, or driving for Uber or Lyft.
The problem is, they want these people to take all stuff out in the boonies, 20 minutes between stops, stuff. It's very hard to make any money when taking into consideration fuel and wear and tear on your vehicle when you can't bang off 10 stops in 15 minutes.
 

Nolimitz

Well-Known Member
That wouldn't save them much. I think ground owners should do the same with extreme rural deliveries. Pay someone with a 60 mpg microcar to meet the van/truck driver in town, give them $10 to drive the 20 miles out to the homestead.
just make the homesteader come get his S_it in town. $10 to the share holers!
 
Top