Glad I'm out of this Part2

[dmac1]

I can point out a potential negative outcome to any thing you do in your life until my face is blue as well. You just come off as a salty employee who couldn't figure it out. I think it's absolutely hilarious you were a single route contractor for 20+ years. It's obvious you only think like an employee, and so you got what you deserve.

I was a multi route owner and once I learned of the problems and potential problems, I was out of there. No reason to gamble for years.

 

[It will be fine]

I was a multi route owner and once I learned of the problems and potential problems, I was out of there. No reason to gamble for years.

If you're playing with house money and winning there's a reason.

 

[It will be fine]

I have to admit, the blind loyalty that some of you guys have to that company is impressive. That's the problem however, it's blind and it has been proven conclusively that it's a company that has spared nothing in it's efforts to avoid any degree of loyalty both moral as well as legal toward you guys. It all comes down to the printed word. And the printed word in your case is not on your side. Yet for some inexplicable reason it doesn't mean anything to you but for me and many others it's the only thing that matters.

Where are you getting blind loyalty? No sane contractor trusts FedEx. There's money to be made here. You should know having done it for 20+ years.

 

[overflowed]

Lol. No, she won't. Bernie might, Hillary wont.

She is working that angle now.

 

[overflowed]

Now the real question arises: if the McDonald's ruling is applicable, where are the Teamsters?

Personally BB if you think about, they would wait. Why try to organize your drivers only if they can take the whole pie? That's a lot of pie.

 

[dmac1]

Where are you getting blind loyalty? No sane contractor trusts FedEx. There's money to be made here. You should know having done it for 20+ years.

No sane person contracts with someone they don't trust.

 

[CJinx]

No sane person contracts with someone they don't trust.

Maybe you don't understand what a contract is...?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Maybe you don't understand what a contract is...?

A contract, in it's simplest terms, is a meeting of the minds. How can you agree with someone that you don't trust?

 

[It will be fine]

A contract, in it's simplest terms, is a meeting of the minds. How can you agree with someone that you don't trust?

Do you trust UPS management to look out for your best interest? If you do, you guys can get rid of that silly union of yours.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Do you trust UPS management to look out for your best interest? If you do, you guys can get rid of that silly union of yours.

Of course not; however, the Company and Union share the same basic goal of working together to ensure our continued prosperity.

 

[bbsam]

A contract, in it's simplest terms, is a meeting of the minds. How can you agree with someone that you don't trust?

Because contracts are often written in a purposefully vague manner. It's not that hard to agree and if it gets too bad, both sides have the ability to terminate the contract.

 

[CJinx]

A contract, in it's simplest terms, is a meeting of the minds. How can you agree with someone that you don't trust?

Because instead of a he said she said verbal agreement and a handshake, it's a written document detailing a service agreement vetted by lawyers (on both ends, hopefully) and signed by the appropriate parties.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Because instead of a he said she said verbal agreement and a handshake, it's a written document detailing a service agreement vetted by lawyers (on both ends, hopefully) and signed by the appropriate parties.

A written contract can be as simple as the back of a napkin or as complex as a 1000 page document. The basic premise for each holds true.

 

[Future]

A written contract can be as simple as the back of a napkin or as complex as a 1000 page document. The basic premise for each holds true.

well put Matlock!

 

[Cactus]

Yes. Local management will do anything to make service and avoid being on the district manager's list. If that means we rent a budget or several and deliver the freight ourselves when a contractor solution isn't an option, they will absolutely do it.

Uh yeah, I'm sure so much will get done even when most their time is taken up with those annoying conference calls.

 

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

Of course not; however, the Company and Union share the same basic goal of working together to ensure our continued prosperity.

Really,Don't you think UPS is looking at the fedwrecks ground model down the line somewhere?????Some group of analysts I bet is working on this right now......

 

[bacha29]

Here are the facts. We began with 4 day 1 contracors. Not single Day 1 contractor took on additional routes depite having been offered them for free. Why? They are marginally profitable in depressed rural areas where the imputs are way off standard relative to the formula RPS/FXG uses to determine what they think it costs you to run the route. Why is that the case? The core zone formula is blind to RD's. They were never factored into the equation. Don't tell me this is B.S because I talked to the retired UPS engineer who was from downtown Manhatten who set up the routes but did not know of their existance. Secondly when we began to see on a daily basis just how slanted the contract language was in favor of G providing the company with value clearly disproportionate to the value we were receiving we could plainly see that taking on more routes made it even more unbalanced. Third, to give the guy driving that route what he had earned for himself and that was a family sustaining wage, an employer paid health insurane plan and something in the way of a pension there wouldn't have been enough left over to make it worthwhile to have additional routes. So we simply gave any additional routes to whoever wanted them. Needless to say the people who took those routes didn't last very long. Too much debt, too much taken out for a lifestyle the economics of the route couldn't support. Any more snide comments?

 

[It will be fine]

Here are the facts. We began with 4 day 1 contracors. Not single Day 1 contractor took on additional routes depite having been offered them for free. Why? They are marginally profitable in depressed rural areas where the imputs are way off standard relative to the formula RPS/FXG uses to determine what they think it costs you to run the route. Why is that the case? The core zone formula is blind to RD's. They were never factored into the equation. Don't tell me this is B.S because I talked to the retired UPS engineer who was from downtown Manhatten who set up the routes but did not know of their existance. Secondly when we began to see on a daily basis just how slanted the contract language was in favor of G providing the company with value clearly disproportionate to the value we were receiving we could plainly see that taking on more routes made it even more unbalanced. Third, to give the guy driving that route what he had earned for himself and that was a family sustaining wage, an employer paid health insurane plan and something in the way of a pension there wouldn't have been enough left over to make it worthwhile to have additional routes. So we simply gave any additional routes to whoever wanted them. Needless to say the people who took those routes didn't last very long. Too much debt, too much taken out for a lifestyle the economics of the route couldn't support. Any more snide comments?

You know you could have gotten the core zone adjusted right? I had a route that the engineers had a trailer delivery attributed to. So their formula had a van delivering 1200 pieces a day. This had the core zone at $4/day, while the surrounding areas were getting $60. I wrote it up, submitted it to the engineers and they adjusted it accordingly. The previous owner never even tried to get it fixed. Saying the engineers don't account for something and doing nothing about it is all on you.

 

[dmac1]

Because instead of a he said she said verbal agreement and a handshake, it's a written document detailing a service agreement vetted by lawyers (on both ends, hopefully) and signed by the appropriate parties.

Except fedex has manuals they follow that just make up rules, like how many shelves you need to have in your van, or what constitutes maintaining your vehicles appearance means, or what they do with business discussions, or what they do with customer complaints, etc, etc, etc, etc..... They told me I had to change my oil even though it had an oil life sensor that they didn't understand. They demanded receipts when I put new tires on so their records would show that the vehicle was maintained when their tread depth inspection showed an increase in depth from one month to the next.

 

[dmac1]

Here are the facts. We began with 4 day 1 contracors. Not single Day 1 contractor took on additional routes depite having been offered them for free. Why? They are marginally profitable in depressed rural areas where the imputs are way off standard relative to the formula RPS/FXG uses to determine what they think it costs you to run the route. Why is that the case? The core zone formula is blind to RD's. They were never factored into the equation. Don't tell me this is B.S because I talked to the retired UPS engineer who was from downtown Manhatten who set up the routes but did not know of their existance. Secondly when we began to see on a daily basis just how slanted the contract language was in favor of G providing the company with value clearly disproportionate to the value we were receiving we could plainly see that taking on more routes made it even more unbalanced. Third, to give the guy driving that route what he had earned for himself and that was a family sustaining wage, an employer paid health insurane plan and something in the way of a pension there wouldn't have been enough left over to make it worthwhile to have additional routes. So we simply gave any additional routes to whoever wanted them. Needless to say the people who took those routes didn't last very long. Too much debt, too much taken out for a lifestyle the economics of the route couldn't support. Any more snide comments?

I don't know if it is still true, but you were able to 'manipulate' the core zone at HD. CZ was calculated by time from first stop in a CZ to last stop and the number of stops in that time. My CZ in one rural zip went from $98 to $124 when I instructed my driver to make sure he delivered packages in that CZ early in the day, leaving at least one package to deliver when returning to the terminal. It was my highest CZ on that route, and raising it made a difference, since most of my stops were in that CZ. HD used to have each zip code with a different CZ. Rural areas had huge areas covered by a single zip code. I did the same with all 3 of my routes, to optimize pay, but none as dramatically as the first. Start your day and end your day in the highest CZ and the computerized formula 'thinks' it takes longer to deliver in that area. It works best if most of your packages also happen to be in the highest CZ zip code. It did take me more than a year to figure out how to work the CZ scam. I was delivering in 5-6 zip codes on ech of my routes, and HD averages it in your settlement, so your CZ with the most packages has the largest effect. The idea is to maximize the CZ pay for that zip code.

I was in a big, huge metro area on day 1 of HD and fedex refused to let any day one contractors take on new routes as they expanded. Several of us quit because we signed on after being promised that we would have first chance at expansion. Fedex didn't want multi route contractors at all until they had more contractors. We started with 13 contractors on day 1, and they allowed no multi route ownership until there were over 40 routes in the terminal almost a year later. And of course, the first multi route contractor was the son in law of someone in mgmt, and was not even a day one contractor.

I finally got a couple routes when I moved to another terminal, and was told only after acquiring two more routes that I had reached their arbitrary limit, that wasn't in the contract. So all this BS about a contract being what you trust is just that.

I knew that it would take at least 5-6 routes to make multi route ownership worthwhile, and that being stuck at 3 routes simply because fedex said so, was not going to work, and I got out soon after. I paid my drivers a good wage, expecting that the small amount I was making from owning additional routes would add up with enough routes, But fedex put artificial limits on me that were not in the contract. Making $15-$50 a week from each of the extra routes wasn't worth the hassle.

Anyone thinking that the 'contract' rules their business is ignorant.