Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Stupid arguments about the Ground business model
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bacha29" data-source="post: 4741633" data-attributes="member: 58386"><p>!. You already know that contractors run under Fat Freddy's numbers. Show me someone outside of perhaps a trip lease would be permitted to haul Fat Freddy's freight. if you actually at one time did work for the company you would automatically know that which casts serious doubt on whether you actually did work for the company.</p><p>2. On Saturday I would deliver all the "G" freight I could deliver rather than on Monday allowing me to deliver the ton of "H" freight brought back Saturday night.</p><p>3. And this is the dead giveaway that your claims of having worked for the company are not true. In 1993 only under the threat of an Internal Revenue Lawsuit did Dan Sullivan ( a guy you never heard of because you neve worked for the company) grudgingly grant contractors goodwill and proprietary rights. Furthermore if you actually did work for the company you would have been well away of the many lawsuits certified as class actions that Fat Freddy either lost of had to settle out of court costing him hundreds of millions Not to mention the court cases DMAC won .</p><p>4. Right if the contract doesn't contain language spelling out the specific disciplinary rules and protocols and the limitations therein they are then free to do whatever they choose. It's like a California federal judge describing the contract once said. "Vague and ambiguous and cleverly written" when describing his ruling declaring that RPS/FXG contractors are being employees which marked the beginning of the multi route format and requiring that everyone become S Corps as a way to counter the ruling. It wasn't the creation and promotion of the "small trucking company" (Fat Freddy's words) but rather in response to the Ca ruling . BTW the judge used a simple analogy to back his ruling. " if it looks like a duck. walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it's a duck"</p><p></p><p>5. Given that I never was afforded the opportunity to choose who I wanted and did not want as a customer how in the hell can you stand there and say with a straight face that they were MY customers.? If I walked into your car dealership to buy one of your cars I was your customer only if you CHOSE to sell me one of your cars.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bacha29, post: 4741633, member: 58386"] !. You already know that contractors run under Fat Freddy's numbers. Show me someone outside of perhaps a trip lease would be permitted to haul Fat Freddy's freight. if you actually at one time did work for the company you would automatically know that which casts serious doubt on whether you actually did work for the company. 2. On Saturday I would deliver all the "G" freight I could deliver rather than on Monday allowing me to deliver the ton of "H" freight brought back Saturday night. 3. And this is the dead giveaway that your claims of having worked for the company are not true. In 1993 only under the threat of an Internal Revenue Lawsuit did Dan Sullivan ( a guy you never heard of because you neve worked for the company) grudgingly grant contractors goodwill and proprietary rights. Furthermore if you actually did work for the company you would have been well away of the many lawsuits certified as class actions that Fat Freddy either lost of had to settle out of court costing him hundreds of millions Not to mention the court cases DMAC won . 4. Right if the contract doesn't contain language spelling out the specific disciplinary rules and protocols and the limitations therein they are then free to do whatever they choose. It's like a California federal judge describing the contract once said. "Vague and ambiguous and cleverly written" when describing his ruling declaring that RPS/FXG contractors are being employees which marked the beginning of the multi route format and requiring that everyone become S Corps as a way to counter the ruling. It wasn't the creation and promotion of the "small trucking company" (Fat Freddy's words) but rather in response to the Ca ruling . BTW the judge used a simple analogy to back his ruling. " if it looks like a duck. walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it's a duck" 5. Given that I never was afforded the opportunity to choose who I wanted and did not want as a customer how in the hell can you stand there and say with a straight face that they were MY customers.? If I walked into your car dealership to buy one of your cars I was your customer only if you CHOSE to sell me one of your cars. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Stupid arguments about the Ground business model
Top