It's starting in California. You are already aware of the non-disclosures you must sign, right??? The drivers accepting the offer are also required to sign non-disclosures so they can't even talk about it. Just look at the ads for the past several months for fedex ground drivers in Ca. Waaaay more than they ever needed for peak hiring. Which is weird, because the ISP model is suppose to eliminate peak hiring by fedex completely.
Independent contractor routes that net over 1,000,000 a year
- Thread starter Bigmike3way
- Start date
CJinx
Well-Known Member
That's one hell of a story. Too bad it isn't true. California is a bit of an anomaly in this company as a lot of the internal job codes and policies differ, but there are no "non-disclosure" documents available for Ground drivers operating in any state whether they are employed by ISPs/ICs or seasonal temps employed by Ground.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Teamsters. Lol. They can't even organize Freight and you think they'll spend the time to organize 10 drivers for a contractor. News flash, they have always been able to organize contractor's drivers. The new rulings don't affect that.
Crozz
Well-Known Member
Lmao
The way I interpret is that if there is a wage argument, IC better be able to show overtime payments, set hourly rate, etc. not a daily rate that exceeds minimum wage. The economic realities standard? The California courts and California Labor and Workforce Agency give different weight to certain factors than do courts applying the common law test to determine contractor status....... I interpret that as the SWA, CSP, ISP unilateral contracor model of one size fits all days are numbered. X only plays under one set of rules....theirs.
Last edited:
NYLJ/Rick Kopstein
A federal judge in Newark has approved a $2.8 million settlement of a class action suit claiming that Macy's and HomeDeliveryLink Inc. wrongly designated drivers who deliver furniture to customers from the retailer's Edison warehouse as independent contractors.
In the Sept. 25 order, U.S. District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey also approved the deduction from the settlement fund of $933,333 in fees to class counsel, and $97,000 in incentive payments to class representatives.
The suit, Badia v. HomeDeliveryLink, claimed Macy's and HomeDeliveryLink violated New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law. The suit said drivers were paid by HomeDeliveryLink but were subject to various Macy's rules and regulations, had costs for "dock fees" and other expenses deducted from their gross pay, and had pay deducted when a customer was not satisfied with a delivery.
The uniforms worn by delivery drivers have Macy's or Bloomingdales' logos on them. When drivers are making deliveries for both Macy's and Bloomingdales, they are required to change into a Macy's shirt when delivering a Macy's order and change into a Bloomingdales' shirt when delivering for that store, the suit claimed. The drivers also paid to lease trucks that had Macy's or Bloomingdales logos on the outside.
The settlement was reached in November 2014, following a full-day mediation with Hunter Hughes, a mediator with Rogers & Hardin in Atlanta, according to court documents.
Two plaintiffs lawyers in the case, Harold Lichten and Anthony Marchetti Jr., also represented the plaintiffs in Hargrove v. Sleepy's, the landmark case from 2012 in which the New Jersey Supreme Court set out the so-called "ABC" test that shifts the burden of proving contractor status in wage-and-hour cases from the employee to the employer. In that case, delivery drivers for a mattress company were found to be independent contractors. That decision and another in In re FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, from the Northern District of Indiana in 2010, which also found drivers to be independent contractors, are "indicative of the uncertainty plaintiffs would face in establishing liability," Martini said.
In addition, the defendants in Badia suggested that an undecided issue remains as to whether the ABC test impermissibly impacts the routes, prices or services of HomeDeliveryLink and is pre-empted by federal law, Martini said.
As of August 2015, 332 class members filed claims, which used up approximately 76 percent of the settlement, Martini said.
Marchetti and Lichten did not respond to requests for comment about the settlement. A third lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ravi Sattiraju, who heads a Princeton firm, declined to comment. Peter Berk and James McGovern of Genova, Burns, Giantomasi & Webster in Newark, who represented HomeDeliveryLink, and Joseph Guarino of DLA Piper in Short Hills, representing Macy's, did not return calls.
Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202...f-Macys-Drivers-Settles-for-28M#ixzz3nqKOsIaw
With each 'contractor' now being required to have multiple drivers, they represent a big enough target. Look at the big picture, not your tiny corner.
A federal judge in Newark has approved a $2.8 million settlement of a class action suit claiming that Macy's and HomeDeliveryLink Inc. wrongly designated drivers who deliver furniture to customers from the retailer's Edison warehouse as independent contractors.
In the Sept. 25 order, U.S. District Judge William Martini of the District of New Jersey also approved the deduction from the settlement fund of $933,333 in fees to class counsel, and $97,000 in incentive payments to class representatives.
The suit, Badia v. HomeDeliveryLink, claimed Macy's and HomeDeliveryLink violated New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law. The suit said drivers were paid by HomeDeliveryLink but were subject to various Macy's rules and regulations, had costs for "dock fees" and other expenses deducted from their gross pay, and had pay deducted when a customer was not satisfied with a delivery.
The uniforms worn by delivery drivers have Macy's or Bloomingdales' logos on them. When drivers are making deliveries for both Macy's and Bloomingdales, they are required to change into a Macy's shirt when delivering a Macy's order and change into a Bloomingdales' shirt when delivering for that store, the suit claimed. The drivers also paid to lease trucks that had Macy's or Bloomingdales logos on the outside.
The settlement was reached in November 2014, following a full-day mediation with Hunter Hughes, a mediator with Rogers & Hardin in Atlanta, according to court documents.
Two plaintiffs lawyers in the case, Harold Lichten and Anthony Marchetti Jr., also represented the plaintiffs in Hargrove v. Sleepy's, the landmark case from 2012 in which the New Jersey Supreme Court set out the so-called "ABC" test that shifts the burden of proving contractor status in wage-and-hour cases from the employee to the employer. In that case, delivery drivers for a mattress company were found to be independent contractors. That decision and another in In re FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, from the Northern District of Indiana in 2010, which also found drivers to be independent contractors, are "indicative of the uncertainty plaintiffs would face in establishing liability," Martini said.
In addition, the defendants in Badia suggested that an undecided issue remains as to whether the ABC test impermissibly impacts the routes, prices or services of HomeDeliveryLink and is pre-empted by federal law, Martini said.
As of August 2015, 332 class members filed claims, which used up approximately 76 percent of the settlement, Martini said.
Marchetti and Lichten did not respond to requests for comment about the settlement. A third lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ravi Sattiraju, who heads a Princeton firm, declined to comment. Peter Berk and James McGovern of Genova, Burns, Giantomasi & Webster in Newark, who represented HomeDeliveryLink, and Joseph Guarino of DLA Piper in Short Hills, representing Macy's, did not return calls.
Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202...f-Macys-Drivers-Settles-for-28M#ixzz3nqKOsIaw
With each 'contractor' now being required to have multiple drivers, they represent a big enough target. Look at the big picture, not your tiny corner.
If your driver has an accident and kills a busload of children because YOUR truck snapped a tie rod end, how happy will fedex be when they have the deep pockets??????? It is liabilty. If you skip town, go bankrupt, fedex is liable for the drivers pay, taxes, etc. Why do you think they need you????
When you tell me why you are needed, and why employees can't do the same thing you do for the same money, I will agree that you are indespensible to fedex.
You guys think that it is just the fedex lawsuits that affect fedex business model. But fedex isn't the only company attempting to skirt legal obligations. Numerous lawsuits like the one I posted are all pointing to making the ISP model more costly than just having employees. UPS does it just fine. I have faith that Fedex can hire employees and make them more loyal than any driver any ISP has.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
Every post you make shows less of an understanding of the business. Contractor labor is dramatically cheaper than employees. Even with the $100k payout per contractor in California, FedEx is hundreds of millions of dollars ahead. Ask our express folk here how loyal the current workforce is over there.
When they organize one and enter negotiations with the contractor/supervisor and can't go anywhere since the "co-employer" is needed due to control exerted by X, then the precedent will be set, as ruled by the NLRB national board.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
And when that contract fails to be renewed for "unrelated" reasons and all the drivers lose their jobs, a clear message will be sent to any other work group thinking of organizing.
Correct! They will realize that when X installs their own "drivers" to cover area that they are true X employees. Teamsters will already have filed an unfair labor claim to prevent X from installing new ISP, as this case will be a co-employer claim.
And that's when the ISP model goes to court. If an ISP can't have unionized drivers, how independent is he???? The whole point is that hiring drivers and paying them doesn't make you any less of an employee when you are an integral part of the business, and fedex controls you. At best, you are a co-employer as an ISP, and fedex doesn't need co-employers.
Did you even read the court decisions??? I did, and at least one state has ruled that the contractor with multiple drivers working for him was still an employee of fedex, and all the drivers were fedex employees. That contractor had 0 liability for any employment taxes, and fedex was liable for those taxes. That was in Oregon, and in California. It is fedex still retaining control that is the question. It is the RIGHT to control, and not the actual exercise of it that is the law. Fedex controls what the areas are, who you can hire, and REQUIRES that you have multiple employees. You are DEPENDENT UPON FEDEX, NOT INDEPENDENT.
If fedex refuses to renew the contract, at least the ISP will be able to collect UI. Fedex will fight it, but they will lose.
And that's when the ISP model goes to court. If an ISP can't have unionized drivers, how independent is he???? The whole point is that hiring drivers and paying them doesn't make you any less of an employee when you are an integral part of the business, and fedex controls you. At best, you are a co-employer as an ISP, and fedex doesn't need co-employers.
Did you even read the court decisions??? I did, and at least one state has ruled that the contractor with multiple drivers working for him was still an employee of fedex, and all the drivers were fedex employees. That contractor had 0 liability for any employment taxes, and fedex was liable for those taxes. That was in Oregon, and in California. It is fedex still retaining control that is the question. It is the RIGHT to control, and not the actual exercise of it that is the law. Fedex controls what the areas are, who you can hire, and REQUIRES that you have multiple employees. You are DEPENDENT UPON FEDEX, NOT INDEPENDENT.
If fedex refuses to renew the contract, at least the ISP will be able to collect UI. Fedex will fight it, but they will lose.
How do you have this much time to spend spouting off ridiculous claims through the entire day?
What is more concerning is what are you trying to gain? If I get irritated and decide to sell one day, last thing I am going to do is waste more countless hours on a company that "did me wrong".
You'll come and go and so will others but damn try to focus on doing something productive.
What is more concerning is what are you trying to gain? If I get irritated and decide to sell one day, last thing I am going to do is waste more countless hours on a company that "did me wrong".
You'll come and go and so will others but damn try to focus on doing something productive.
Maybe X paid out dmac, that's how he/she has gotten the info and time. I don't know. What's your excuse? Oh yeah, you just count money. Funny how you get all bent out of shape when someone posts something you don't like? Oh yeah, that's your line.
But your point is my point. That McDonald's ruling was huge. So huge that as it is would fundamentally change not just Ground but every contractor and franchise model. Not only that, but the relationship between every employer and contracted laborer in the country.
Do you grasp the lobbying powers that are working against these changes? The sheer dollar amount is staggering. Do you have faith that your elected leaders allow the NLRB ruling to effectively become the standard?
That's not even to suggest that I disagree with the ruling. In fact, I think they are exactly right. But wholesale change like this simply does not happen. Look for small changes by companies to minimally comply. X to a large degree put these compliance changes in place several years ago
You seem to be here more often than me. I only respond when I get an alert that you replied!!!!!
