MaineGroundDriver
Well-Known Member
I'll be waiting ..
Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise Model
- Thread starter MaineGroundDriver
- Start date
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Do other franchises lobby Congress to keep a scheme in place that lowers wages and eliminates benefits?
Do other franchises lobby Congress to keep a scheme in place that lowers wages and eliminates benefits?
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you see the light and acknowledge that it is a "SCAM". Now go enlighten your brothers and sisters.
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
That happens not to be a structure of the model but of the law. And yes. Nearly every industry lobbies congress to keep costs low.
That happens not to be a structure of the model but of the law. And yes. Nearly every industry lobbies congress to keep costs low.
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Really? Name the franchises out there who do so. Certainly industries lobby to reduce regulations, etc, but we're talking investing in a company set up to offer hands on investors a franchise opportunity. Name one who bought the rights to name the Redskins stadium after their corporation with luxury boxes that they wine and dine Congressmen in? When it comes to lobbying by a single company I'll bet good money that few come close to the lengths FedEx has gone to insure their control over their employees.
Really? Name the franchises out there who do so. Certainly industries lobby to reduce regulations, etc, but we're talking investing in a company set up to offer hands on investors a franchise opportunity. Name one who bought the rights to name the Redskins stadium after their corporation with luxury boxes that they wine and dine Congressmen in? When it comes to lobbying by a single company I'll bet good money that few come close to the lengths FedEx has gone to insure their control over their employees.
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Still waiting?
Still waiting?
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Let's take a McDonald's franchise for example. The workers there are actually classified as employees all the way down to the newbie on the french fry station, whereas FedEx Ground misclassifies workers as ISP/IC's with the sole intention of keeping wages low and keeping the union out. You contractors are paid to turn a blind eye towards this whole situation while acting as some middleman in the whole scheme of things.
Smith gets away with this (for now) since he has many a politicians in his pocket.
Let's take a McDonald's franchise for example. The workers there are actually classified as employees all the way down to the newbie on the french fry station, whereas FedEx Ground misclassifies workers as ISP/IC's with the sole intention of keeping wages low and keeping the union out. You contractors are paid to turn a blind eye towards this whole situation while acting as some middleman in the whole scheme of things.
Smith gets away with this (for now) since he has many a politicians in his pocket.
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Planning on buying a franchise to make grenades?
Planning on buying a franchise to make grenades?
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
I'm right here with your answer. The smell test that determines whether or not workers are employees are not is "degree of control". Now, bbsam and all the rest of them always get on here and spew about how much independence they have, how they are "business partners" (official FedEx term, by the way), and on and on about how it is THEIR business, not Fred's. Most observers, myself included, see FedEx (the corporation) as having a much higher degree of control over everyday operations than these contractors claim. It is in their best interests to do so, by he way.
Also, I have never heard any contractor/ISP refer to themselves on here as a "franchisee". If that's what they really are, why not use the actual terminology? I actually checked into becoming a McDonald's franchisee a few years ago, and found that for one, I didn't have nearly enough capital, and two, that even though it would have been "my" restaurant, that it was pretty clear who was really running the show. My store, like all McDonald's, had to conform to a strict code ensuring that it meets some very rigid standards set by the corporation. Are you comparing the Ground business model to McDonald's and their set-up?
Or, are you comparing it to someone like myself, who is a true independent contractor affiliated with a large real estate company? I set my own hours, and do whatever I want, as long as it is legal, and conforms with local real estate law and the standards set by my parent firm. If I want to take 3 weeks off and go to Mexico, I do it. The company cannot say anything or do anything about it.
So, how is it over at Ground? Employees are scheduled, they must wear the company uniform and rigidly conform to company policies and procedures. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of differences between the Express courier job and the Ground driver job, except they are a non-employee and I am. From what I hear, FedEx managers (employees) rigidly control the work environment and corporate standards, and they tell contractors who to get rid of when there are problems. Who is the real "boss" at Ground, anyway?
As vantexan mentioned, you don't see other huge companies lobbying and/or fighting in court over whether or not their workers are "employees". Why is that? For example, I have never seen McDonald's in court fighting similar charges. Again, why is that if Ground is a classic franchisee model?
The simple answer is that Ground doesn't fit the classic franchisee model, and never will. Keep trying, OK?
I'm right here with your answer. The smell test that determines whether or not workers are employees are not is "degree of control". Now, bbsam and all the rest of them always get on here and spew about how much independence they have, how they are "business partners" (official FedEx term, by the way), and on and on about how it is THEIR business, not Fred's. Most observers, myself included, see FedEx (the corporation) as having a much higher degree of control over everyday operations than these contractors claim. It is in their best interests to do so, by he way.
Also, I have never heard any contractor/ISP refer to themselves on here as a "franchisee". If that's what they really are, why not use the actual terminology? I actually checked into becoming a McDonald's franchisee a few years ago, and found that for one, I didn't have nearly enough capital, and two, that even though it would have been "my" restaurant, that it was pretty clear who was really running the show. My store, like all McDonald's, had to conform to a strict code ensuring that it meets some very rigid standards set by the corporation. Are you comparing the Ground business model to McDonald's and their set-up?
Or, are you comparing it to someone like myself, who is a true independent contractor affiliated with a large real estate company? I set my own hours, and do whatever I want, as long as it is legal, and conforms with local real estate law and the standards set by my parent firm. If I want to take 3 weeks off and go to Mexico, I do it. The company cannot say anything or do anything about it.
So, how is it over at Ground? Employees are scheduled, they must wear the company uniform and rigidly conform to company policies and procedures. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of differences between the Express courier job and the Ground driver job, except they are a non-employee and I am. From what I hear, FedEx managers (employees) rigidly control the work environment and corporate standards, and they tell contractors who to get rid of when there are problems. Who is the real "boss" at Ground, anyway?
As vantexan mentioned, you don't see other huge companies lobbying and/or fighting in court over whether or not their workers are "employees". Why is that? For example, I have never seen McDonald's in court fighting similar charges. Again, why is that if Ground is a classic franchisee model?
The simple answer is that Ground doesn't fit the classic franchisee model, and never will. Keep trying, OK?
oldrps
Well-Known Member
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Employees working at a franchise are not employees of McDonald's, they are employees of the franchise. Franchisee's are not employees of McDonald's either.
In some ways the Ground model is like a franchise, they have a dedicated area, if they do not service or grow with it, part or all of their territory can be taken. This happens all the time with franchises if they do not open as many stores as the corporation feels that it can support or they give bad service.
If a McDonald's corporate person went to a franchise location and a franchisee's employee was rude or very unprofessional, what do they do? Ignore it since it is not their employee or get the franchisee to terminate or discipline their employee?
There is a lot of control and requirements put on franchises, very similar to what Ground does to its contractors.
Here is a website that on US Franchise Law Basics.
Employees working at a franchise are not employees of McDonald's, they are employees of the franchise. Franchisee's are not employees of McDonald's either.
In some ways the Ground model is like a franchise, they have a dedicated area, if they do not service or grow with it, part or all of their territory can be taken. This happens all the time with franchises if they do not open as many stores as the corporation feels that it can support or they give bad service.
If a McDonald's corporate person went to a franchise location and a franchisee's employee was rude or very unprofessional, what do they do? Ignore it since it is not their employee or get the franchisee to terminate or discipline their employee?
There is a lot of control and requirements put on franchises, very similar to what Ground does to its contractors.
Here is a website that on US Franchise Law Basics.
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
do you think they don't exist? Better yet, how about contractors who excel at cyber warfare and security?
do you think they don't exist? Better yet, how about contractors who excel at cyber warfare and security?
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
That's where you mess up, MFE. There is no classic contractor model. The law gives wide lattitude. You always go to "degree of control". Just think how subjective that is. Lots of gray area, not because Fred pays off the politicians for it, but because politicians want it that way.
That's where you mess up, MFE. There is no classic contractor model. The law gives wide lattitude. You always go to "degree of control". Just think how subjective that is. Lots of gray area, not because Fred pays off the politicians for it, but because politicians want it that way.
barnyard
KTM rider
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Actually, the FE contractor scam is not that different than many trucking companies that offer lease/purchase plans to employees. Even though the failure rate is huge and many contractors lose everything they own, it is still legal. Why?? Because big trucking companies lobby to make sure the rules do not change.
Consider this example... A CDL holder goes to, let's say ATS, they sign papers to lease a tractor with no money down. According to the lease agreement, they can only haul loads from ATS. ATS books the freight and gives the lease driver a percentage of each load, except the load came from their own in-house brokerage, so ATS took a commission from the broker and from their parent company, leaving the driver with very little to pay for maintenance, fuel and the all important truck payment. There are many tales of drivers that had to live on less than $100 a week after ATS was done taking their cut. Many other tales of drivers that sat because there were no loads around and they could not afford to pay for fuel to get 400 miles to another load. Other tales of drivers who lost their shirts because their tractors broke down, they could not haul loads and could not pay their weekly truck payment.
Those drivers are considered independent contractors even though they are dispatched all loads via ATS and must follow their schedule and carry loads that only they book.
Many, many other OTR companies do the exact same thing and if the rules were to change for FE, they would undoubtedly also have to change for the OTR fleece scams. Google, "Lease/purchase scam" for lots more info and links to people that have lost everything because of them. I suspect that many of them would argue that the FE model is a pretty good deal.
In the lease/purchase scam, the company does not have any of the equipment costs that they would have if they ran their own trucks. Many OTR companies have found that leasing trucks is so profitable that they also own dealerships to sell tractors. The OTR companies make money on the loads and the tractor payments, plus they do not have the employee costs; pretty much just like FE ground.
I suspect that FE gets lots of industry support from outside the small package biz for their model.
Actually, the FE contractor scam is not that different than many trucking companies that offer lease/purchase plans to employees. Even though the failure rate is huge and many contractors lose everything they own, it is still legal. Why?? Because big trucking companies lobby to make sure the rules do not change.
Consider this example... A CDL holder goes to, let's say ATS, they sign papers to lease a tractor with no money down. According to the lease agreement, they can only haul loads from ATS. ATS books the freight and gives the lease driver a percentage of each load, except the load came from their own in-house brokerage, so ATS took a commission from the broker and from their parent company, leaving the driver with very little to pay for maintenance, fuel and the all important truck payment. There are many tales of drivers that had to live on less than $100 a week after ATS was done taking their cut. Many other tales of drivers that sat because there were no loads around and they could not afford to pay for fuel to get 400 miles to another load. Other tales of drivers who lost their shirts because their tractors broke down, they could not haul loads and could not pay their weekly truck payment.
Those drivers are considered independent contractors even though they are dispatched all loads via ATS and must follow their schedule and carry loads that only they book.
Many, many other OTR companies do the exact same thing and if the rules were to change for FE, they would undoubtedly also have to change for the OTR fleece scams. Google, "Lease/purchase scam" for lots more info and links to people that have lost everything because of them. I suspect that many of them would argue that the FE model is a pretty good deal.
In the lease/purchase scam, the company does not have any of the equipment costs that they would have if they ran their own trucks. Many OTR companies have found that leasing trucks is so profitable that they also own dealerships to sell tractors. The OTR companies make money on the loads and the tractor payments, plus they do not have the employee costs; pretty much just like FE ground.
I suspect that FE gets lots of industry support from outside the small package biz for their model.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Lipstick on a pig is still a pig. All you and your contractor brotheren prove is that it is a " legal scam". How long it stays legal is up for debate.
Re: Someone Tell Me How The Ground "SCAM" Is Any Different Than Any Other Franchise M
Actually, what it proves is that it does not matter how much control they WANT to have, they are still constrained by the agreement. And I think you miss just how relatively easy Fedex can massage the agreement to conform to whatever the government finds objectionable.
Actually, what it proves is that it does not matter how much control they WANT to have, they are still constrained by the agreement. And I think you miss just how relatively easy Fedex can massage the agreement to conform to whatever the government finds objectionable.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's that easy. Just look at how many lawsuits have been filed on this matter, millions spent on fighting them and fines assessed against them, and who knows how much spent on lobbying to keep this scam "legal". Nothing easy about that and it will continue as long as they continue to do business this way.
Brown287
Im not the Mail Man!
Bingo! This is what's so laughable, for a "legal and legitimate" business, they sure spend a lot of time in court rooms.
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
Exactly. All smoke and mirrors.
Similar threads
