UnconTROLLed
perfection
is that necessary? and you're the one talkign about your dad working preload in his college years which was what? Maybe 30 years ago?
Last edited by a moderator:
FedEx Home wins round in Unionization efforts
- Thread starter Catatonic
- Start date
is that necessary? and you're the one talkign about your dad working preload in his college years which was what? Maybe 30 years ago?
tieguy
Banned
I'm not a big fan of organizing Fdx. I think it would possibly lead to the destruction of ups.
Right now ups is the teamsters single largest employer. The teamsters certainly have to take an interest in the well being of ups in order to maitain thier own viability.
If they organize fdx then they would no longer need UPS. They could theoretically shut down ups with one strike after another. The packages and jobs would simply move from ups to fdx which the teamsters would also control. it gives the teamsters control of the industry
Right now ups is the teamsters single largest employer. The teamsters certainly have to take an interest in the well being of ups in order to maitain thier own viability.
If they organize fdx then they would no longer need UPS. They could theoretically shut down ups with one strike after another. The packages and jobs would simply move from ups to fdx which the teamsters would also control. it gives the teamsters control of the industry
some1else
Banned
the situation in our industry is very different however to bring up grocery again safeway and giant always negotiated the contract with our union together.
i understand fed-ex differs from ups far more than safeway/giant however its simply something to consider; even competitors can negotiate with the same union to avoid the above issue. im not sure it would work with this industry as complicated/specific as the contracts are...
some1else
Banned
yes but maybe more like 25 years ago im not as old as yall farts
UnconTROLLed
perfection
ok, well I'm 30, maybe not young but definitly not old.
DS
Fenderbender
What a line of crap that is.All they care about is money.
Our reputation is being tarnished by micro managing.
UPS thrives when the decisions are made by the lower level mngmt teams
that actually care about the customer.
It could mean the death of us.
I agree with tie,but I dont think fedex will ever go union,why should they?
The teamsters do nothing but take my dues.
jmho
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Interesting. You consider the Teamsters to be scheming and control-crazed in the same way I think Fred S is a dangerous egomaniac with an inordinate amount of power and control. And he's just one person, not an organization like the IBT.
If FedEx does organize, wouldn't there also be the possibility of a more balanced package industry that featured the so-called "level playing field" that UPS has been lobbying for? Even if we do go IBT, our wage and benefit package won't approach that of UPS, at least not for a long time. To immediately expect pay and benefit parity is both unreasonable and impossible, and would probably bankrupt FedEx.
I can only speak for myself, but I want the IBT in order to bring Smith to the table, because that's the only way he's going to ever bargain with his employees. I don't love the unions, but if that's what it takes to get a decent wage and benefit package, that's where we are headed at FedEx.
Smith will eventually be brought under control. He's had his run, and it's time to reign-in business "leaders" like him who exploit the living crap out of their people, buy-off crooked politicians, and run their empires like Mafiosos. Maybe Hoffa is a crook too, but at least I can make a decent living as a Teamster.
705red
Browncafe Steward
The following is a statement by hall, Teamsters
> International Vice
> President and Director of the Teamsters Package Division,
> regarding yesterday's
> decision on FedEx Home by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> District of
> Columbia:
> "We are disappointed in the court's decision to
> deprive FedEx drivers of the
> right to form unions and bargain for better working
> conditions and wages,
> leaving them at the mercy of this notoriously anti-worker
> company run by a
> member of the Forbes 2008 Billionaires Club. We are
> confident that the decision
> will not survive review by the full court or by the U.S.
> Supreme Court.
> "The Teamsters' fight on behalf of these workers
> will not stop. We remain
> committed to those FedEx drivers who have sought the
> protection of a legitimate
> collective bargaining agreement to improve their lives.
> "The facts remain: More than 30 states continue
> administrative and tax
> reviews of the employee status of FedEx Home drivers. The
> IRS is examining the
> company's tax classification for 2002, 2004, 2005 and
> 2006, and the federal
> courts are still hearing the national and state claim
> lawsuits.
> "The National Labor Relations Board has primary
> authority to determine
> whether workers are properly classified as employees or
> independent contractors,
> and reviewing courts are required to defer to the
> board's justifiable findings.
> In yesterday's decision, the majority of the court
> chose to ignore its legal
> obligation to defer judgment to the NLRB, disregarding
> detailed findings.
> "Since 1968, the Supreme Court has consistently
> instructed the NLRB to use a
> common-law test to determine employee status, which led to
> the finding that the
> drivers are employees. The court majority disregarded
> virtually all of these
> factors required by the Supreme Court in favor of an
> evaluation on whether the
> drivers had 'potential entrepreneurial
> opportunities.' As noted by the
> dissenting judge, the majority failed to apply the proper
> standard for
> determining employment status.
> "The reality of the workplace, as found by the
> NLRB's reasoned decision, is
> that FedEx clearly controls the daily existence of the
> driver. Yet they are
> without the legal protections and benefits of
> employees."
> SOURCE International Brotherhood of Teamsters
> http://www.teamster.org
> International Vice
> President and Director of the Teamsters Package Division,
> regarding yesterday's
> decision on FedEx Home by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
> District of
> Columbia:
> "We are disappointed in the court's decision to
> deprive FedEx drivers of the
> right to form unions and bargain for better working
> conditions and wages,
> leaving them at the mercy of this notoriously anti-worker
> company run by a
> member of the Forbes 2008 Billionaires Club. We are
> confident that the decision
> will not survive review by the full court or by the U.S.
> Supreme Court.
> "The Teamsters' fight on behalf of these workers
> will not stop. We remain
> committed to those FedEx drivers who have sought the
> protection of a legitimate
> collective bargaining agreement to improve their lives.
> "The facts remain: More than 30 states continue
> administrative and tax
> reviews of the employee status of FedEx Home drivers. The
> IRS is examining the
> company's tax classification for 2002, 2004, 2005 and
> 2006, and the federal
> courts are still hearing the national and state claim
> lawsuits.
> "The National Labor Relations Board has primary
> authority to determine
> whether workers are properly classified as employees or
> independent contractors,
> and reviewing courts are required to defer to the
> board's justifiable findings.
> In yesterday's decision, the majority of the court
> chose to ignore its legal
> obligation to defer judgment to the NLRB, disregarding
> detailed findings.
> "Since 1968, the Supreme Court has consistently
> instructed the NLRB to use a
> common-law test to determine employee status, which led to
> the finding that the
> drivers are employees. The court majority disregarded
> virtually all of these
> factors required by the Supreme Court in favor of an
> evaluation on whether the
> drivers had 'potential entrepreneurial
> opportunities.' As noted by the
> dissenting judge, the majority failed to apply the proper
> standard for
> determining employment status.
> "The reality of the workplace, as found by the
> NLRB's reasoned decision, is
> that FedEx clearly controls the daily existence of the
> driver. Yet they are
> without the legal protections and benefits of
> employees."
> SOURCE International Brotherhood of Teamsters
> http://www.teamster.org
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
Imagine for a moment -
The route you have been driving for years. You build it, you caress your customers with love, you build it, you know it, and you feel it is yours.
Imagine that the route, the run, the territory is in fact yours. Towns A, B, C and D? You run them. Anyone wants to send a package there, you are the one they MUST deal with. And, when you retire, you can place a value on that route, based on multiples of annual income, and you can sell it. Hell, you can hire another driver to run it while you take a cut.
Sound great? That is FedEx.
It is also the definition of what an independent contractor is.
The only people questioning the legality of FedEx's ic MODEL IS.......drum roll...... UPS and the Teamsters. The people that make the laws - you know, that define if it is legal or not? They have already said it is legal.
Only UPS and the Teamsters are muddying the waters. And that makes us look like Tonya Harding (to paraphrase from an excellent post above)
If I have to pay $100k to get a FedEx ground route here locally, the FedEx employees are not in need, nor do they want, a Union.
And that is the way I see it.
The route you have been driving for years. You build it, you caress your customers with love, you build it, you know it, and you feel it is yours.
Imagine that the route, the run, the territory is in fact yours. Towns A, B, C and D? You run them. Anyone wants to send a package there, you are the one they MUST deal with. And, when you retire, you can place a value on that route, based on multiples of annual income, and you can sell it. Hell, you can hire another driver to run it while you take a cut.
Sound great? That is FedEx.
It is also the definition of what an independent contractor is.
The only people questioning the legality of FedEx's ic MODEL IS.......drum roll...... UPS and the Teamsters. The people that make the laws - you know, that define if it is legal or not? They have already said it is legal.
Only UPS and the Teamsters are muddying the waters. And that makes us look like Tonya Harding (to paraphrase from an excellent post above)
If I have to pay $100k to get a FedEx ground route here locally, the FedEx employees are not in need, nor do they want, a Union.
And that is the way I see it.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
What a site ... even you are entitled to your opinion.
Many of us may agree with philosophically but as UPSers ... screw that and unionize them.
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
Hoax - I appreciate that. I think.
I wanted to say this as well - to anyone who bases their beliefs on what defines an independent contractor vs. an employee on information obtained solely from the posts here, union propaganda, and newspaper reports, is simply misinformed. I'd go so far as to say COMPLETELY misinformed. It is just a touch more involved than being "forced" to wear a uniform, and being "forced" to actually deliver FedEx packages.
Before you argue, familiarize yourself with the true, FULL, IN CONTEXT definition of what an independent contractor is. There is no question that FedEx ground workers are clearly ICs.
And a serious, non-rhetorical question - has anyone here (other than the obvious "we must unionize FedEx NOW because they are CHEATING" crowd) ever met a FedEx employee that wanted to be able to join a union? SPECIFICALLY want to join a union? I NEVER have.
I wanted to say this as well - to anyone who bases their beliefs on what defines an independent contractor vs. an employee on information obtained solely from the posts here, union propaganda, and newspaper reports, is simply misinformed. I'd go so far as to say COMPLETELY misinformed. It is just a touch more involved than being "forced" to wear a uniform, and being "forced" to actually deliver FedEx packages.
Before you argue, familiarize yourself with the true, FULL, IN CONTEXT definition of what an independent contractor is. There is no question that FedEx ground workers are clearly ICs.
And a serious, non-rhetorical question - has anyone here (other than the obvious "we must unionize FedEx NOW because they are CHEATING" crowd) ever met a FedEx employee that wanted to be able to join a union? SPECIFICALLY want to join a union? I NEVER have.
evilleace
Well-Known Member
Yes but if you buy a route for $100,000 some of that goes to fed-ex and I would sure as hell love to see you try to make $100,000 a yr on that route specailly after vehicle maintenance the lease on the truck gas benefits for yourself not to mention no retirement package yah that sounds like fed-ex treats them fair to me.
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
With all due respect, you are misinformed.
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
JimJimmyJames
Big Time Feeder Driver
If I am not mistaken, in order to avoid in the future the question of, "is a single individual who contracts for FedEx Ground indeed an independent contractor, or actually an employee dressed up as a contractor", FedEx will be requiring that you must own multiple routes.
Why? From the way I see it, it is much more plausible to say that the, lets say five, guys who work for a contractor, use his trucks, wear the uniforms he provides, etc. are employed by said contractor and not by FedEx Ground.
Sure, those five guys could unionize, but is that realistic?
What Fedex Ground would really have to worry about is if their contractors, who will be more like franchisees, will band together, in their own union of sorts, and demand better contract terms.
Still, I suspect Fred S would rather deal with that than a company of union employees.
Why? From the way I see it, it is much more plausible to say that the, lets say five, guys who work for a contractor, use his trucks, wear the uniforms he provides, etc. are employed by said contractor and not by FedEx Ground.
Sure, those five guys could unionize, but is that realistic?
What Fedex Ground would really have to worry about is if their contractors, who will be more like franchisees, will band together, in their own union of sorts, and demand better contract terms.
Still, I suspect Fred S would rather deal with that than a company of union employees.
bluehdmc
Well-Known Member
To use the coffee truck analogy: You buy the coffee truck and route. After you've been running YOUR ROUTE (after all you paid for it). You find you've got some customers that want donuts but the people you buy your coffee from won't let you sell donuts. Or you have 1 stop that's way out in the boondocks, it costs you $4.00 to drive there for a $1.50 sale, a net loss of $3.50. If you were REALLY INDEPENDENT
you could stop going there.
Or you could do what some of those independent contractors do, sheet it as closed because it's too hard to find. (This has happenned to me, my address has been here almost 50yr, but you couldn't find it with a gps.)
Also Living the Dream, if you think Fedex's model is so much better, why are you working for UPS?
you could stop going there.
Or you could do what some of those independent contractors do, sheet it as closed because it's too hard to find. (This has happenned to me, my address has been here almost 50yr, but you couldn't find it with a gps.)
Also Living the Dream, if you think Fedex's model is so much better, why are you working for UPS?
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
Three things -
1. There is a world of difference, a galaxy of difference, between being an independent (Joe's Delivery Service & Lawnmower Repair) and being an independent contractor (FedEx Ground).
2. I never claimed any one model was better / worse than another. Anywhere. I did say it was a valid, legal model. And, if I didn't before, I meant to.
3. You state "To use the coffee truck analogy: You buy the coffee truck and route. After you've been running YOUR ROUTE (after all you paid for it). You find you've got some customers that want donuts but the people you buy your coffee from won't let you sell donuts."
I was waiting for something similar but better, but your anti-analogy (?) will work. If you purchased a route to sell coffee, knowing that you were to only sell coffee, then there should be no concern that you cannot sell donuts. It is a coffee company.
If I were hired as an independent contractor by say, Exxon, to go around & clean all the gas stations they have, then my job, what I have contracted to do, is go clean all the exxon gas stations. Just because I am an independent contractor does not, in any way, give me the right to say "ah, the hell with it, today I'm going to go PAINT all the exxon stations". The definition of "Independent Contractor" has nowhere in it the right to do as you choose, and was never meant to be such. It is contractually cooperating with outside individuals/companies to do a specific job, in a specific way.
JimJimmyJames
Big Time Feeder Driver
I think the rub might be, can I deliver packages for some other company in my spare time, using my truck? I won't use the uniform I buy from you or use your name, I just want to deliver packages on Sunday for another business.
I would assume that would be ok since if I had, using the cleaning company analogy, a contract to clean Exxon's bathrooms I hardly would think that they care if I clean Sunoco's too.
I mean I don't care if my plumber works on a FedEx guy's house too even though I contracted for him to remodel my bathroom.
If a contractor must work exclusively for the company that contracted him, can he really be defined as an independent, as we all understand the term?
I would assume that would be ok since if I had, using the cleaning company analogy, a contract to clean Exxon's bathrooms I hardly would think that they care if I clean Sunoco's too.
I mean I don't care if my plumber works on a FedEx guy's house too even though I contracted for him to remodel my bathroom.
If a contractor must work exclusively for the company that contracted him, can he really be defined as an independent, as we all understand the term?
Last edited:
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
Yes - non-compete / non-disclosure.
Similar threads
