Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dmac1" data-source="post: 2332462" data-attributes="member: 60252">I followed the lawsuits closely and read the arguments and judges reasonings. Using contractors to deliver packages was a problem. But using contractors to provide drivers is a completely different story.&nbsp; Control is not the issue GET THAT POINT. With ISPs, it will be a very different focus. The focus will be on opportunity to expand.&nbsp; With ICs, fedex had actual control over the means and manner of delivery. But fedex doesn&#039;t control how an ISP does his job. An ISP can shop more for insurance, decide who to use for payroll, and has more opportunity to expand. Only if you think that McDonalds franchise employees are actually McDonalds corp employees could you think that an ISP will be ruled to be a fedex employee.You clearly don&#039;t understand the legal issues, and I&#039;m not great at explaining them to you. Just take it that under the new ISP model, the ISP has almost 0 chance of being a fedex employee if he challenges it. And even if one did challenge, fedex would tweak the contract again.And if any ISP is totally dependent only on fedex, it is the fault of the ISP, not fedex. There is nothing stopping any ISP from getting more work elsewhere. You can buy unmarked vehicles, even economy cars and use them anywhere you want except for fedex deliveries.The lawsuits were not a lopsided victory in favor of employee status. And the ISP model solved the issues that finally settled it. In some locations, anyone who operated more than one vehicle was excluded. Just having the ability to make profit off the labor of others is more than enough, and fedex now has evidence of a lot more profitable route sales to show entrepreneurial opportunity. That opportunity in most cases outweighs the control factor. If you want to argue the point, read all the legal decisions and reasoning like I have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dmac1, post: 2332462, member: 60252"] I followed the lawsuits closely and read the arguments and judges reasonings. Using contractors to deliver packages was a problem. But using contractors to provide drivers is a completely different story. Control is not the issue GET THAT POINT. With ISPs, it will be a very different focus. The focus will be on opportunity to expand. With ICs, fedex had actual control over the means and manner of delivery. But fedex doesn't control how an ISP does his job. An ISP can shop more for insurance, decide who to use for payroll, and has more opportunity to expand. Only if you think that McDonalds franchise employees are actually McDonalds corp employees could you think that an ISP will be ruled to be a fedex employee. You clearly don't understand the legal issues, and I'm not great at explaining them to you. Just take it that under the new ISP model, the ISP has almost 0 chance of being a fedex employee if he challenges it. And even if one did challenge, fedex would tweak the contract again. And if any ISP is totally dependent only on fedex, it is the fault of the ISP, not fedex. There is nothing stopping any ISP from getting more work elsewhere. You can buy unmarked vehicles, even economy cars and use them anywhere you want except for fedex deliveries. The lawsuits were not a lopsided victory in favor of employee status. And the ISP model solved the issues that finally settled it. In some locations, anyone who operated more than one vehicle was excluded. Just having the ability to make profit off the labor of others is more than enough, and fedex now has evidence of a lot more profitable route sales to show entrepreneurial opportunity. That opportunity in most cases outweighs the control factor. If you want to argue the point, read all the legal decisions and reasoning like I have. [/QUOTE]

Verification