Discussion in 'FedEx Discussions' started by OUMick, Sep 24, 2015.
Not currently. Likely next summer or the year after.
I don't think it matters at this point. Everyone operating in any state should be up to scale. I wouldn't run anything with less than 5 trucks/500 stops. The way they are changing the IC agreement the differences are negligible. Plan for a scale requirement.
Just spoke to someone last week thinking of buying two routes in GA, told them they should check this before diving in. They said they don't own any routes at this time.
The SWA"S at terminals in GA need to get organized with 4or 5 SWA"S operating under newly created S_Corps or G-Corps while operating as seperate profit centers. It's about the only way SWA's can avoid falling into the distressed market X created for their routes and forced to accept distressed market prices for their routes. Given the unstable investment platform the key here is to make the required number of routes without throwing more borrowed money at it then can be justified or sustained.
Ask around. Any whispers of a lawsuit, or legal troubles with the IC business model for the company in that state? Either of those seem to trigger a transition fairly quickly.
Fedex won't be able to have multiple systems in different states. They will eventually need to use their own employees, or sub out their entire delivery business. Even the MWA ISP system is facing challenges and legal questions. Fedex has already been deemed to be at least a co-employer, and billed for taxes in at least two states.
Got an email today with "questions regarding the ISP transition". My state is not ISP, nor is it scheduled to go ISP. I would say that is writing on the wall... Pretty clear.
Perhaps someday control of the Fedex Corp board of directors may shift to someone else. If it were to happen you can bet that the first item of business will be to end this so called " Independent Contractor" charade. I know that Bill Ackman of Pershing Capital has always had comtempt for the G and X disconnect from another . Considered it to be too inefficient.
Separate names with a comma.