The FedEx driver who sued and won

[worldwide]

Reggie Gray thought working for FedEx was his ticket to a better life.
It turned out to be anything but: His years as a driver for FedEx Ground ended with him filing for bankruptcy and taking the company to court.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/companies/fedex-driver-lawsuit/index.html?iid=HP_LN

 

[xfdxgroundmgmt]

"Gray had to purchase his delivery route for $5,000. He bought his own van for $17,000. FedEx later made him to buy another vehicle for $11,000 and hire a second driver when his route got so busy that one van wasn't enough to deliver all the packages. The vehicles needed constant maintenance"

He chose to purchase!
He wasn't made to buy another vehicle, he could have sold off area or given up area without hurting his contract!
Constant maintenance sounds like I'll take care of it when it breaks instead of maintaining the vehicles. IMO!

"But its army of 32,500 uniformed drivers, managers and affiliated workers are classified as contractors"

Ok Management are not contracted and only the contractor would be contracted not his or her employee(s)

 

[STFXG]

So he wasn't getting rich running an econoline? Didn't have enough capacity because the area grew and he couldn't keep up? Another boo hoo story. Good on him for winning a payout though.

I wish I could get routes for that low of an investment. 22k sounds great!

 

[Cactus]

I'd rather take that 22K and start up my own business with a business model and all policies designed by me and for me.

Screw FedEx Ground and their great American scam and all the "suits" associated with it can go to hell.

 

[It will be fine]

5k for a route is crazy cheap. I read the article, it sounds like he didn't know how to run a business. It's not for everyone. Handling growth and remaining profitable is one of largest hurdles for this business, but it's a good problem to have.

 

[kickpackage1]

FedEx is a complete joke good for this guy Fedex is a SCAM managers for ground are complete and that is being to kind ,puppets on Fred Smih string

 

[bbsam]

FedEx is a complete joke good for this guy Fedex is a SCAM managers for ground are complete and that is being to kind ,puppets on Fred Smih string

Do you speak twitter?

 

[kickpackage1]

FedEx is a complete joke good for this guy Fedex is a SCAM manage

Do you speak twitter?

No Why
rs for ground are complete and that is being to kind ,puppets on Fred Smih string

 

[bbsam]

No reason. Welcome to BC.

 

[kickpackage1]

No reason. Welcome to BC.

Thx I have been a member just read post never commented on any . I worked for a contractor for Fedex Ground for 17 years and I started with him when it was RPS never bought because all of the BS you guys have to deal with and the contractor I worked for was just as big of a scam as fedex is and after 17 years I just said friend it one day and never went back best move I ever made but I still read the post for entertainment makes me realize what a joke I left behind and don't miss it at alllllll

 

[BoxDriver]

So what kind of work do you do now after leaving Ground?

 

[MrFedEx]

Reggie Gray thought working for FedEx was his ticket to a better life.
It turned out to be anything but: His years as a driver for FedEx Ground ended with him filing for bankruptcy and taking the company to court.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/companies/fedex-driver-lawsuit/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Here's the key phrase..."FedEx controlled almost all aspects of the business". Degree of control. Sorry, Sammy, but your business is scammy.

 

[bbsam]

Here's the key phrase..."FedEx controlled almost all aspects of the business". Degree of control. Sorry, Sammy, but your business is scammy.

And the law says Fedex can have no control?

 

[vantexan]

And the law says Fedex can have no control?

I've heard mgrs sell the idea of taking a 4X10 route by saying if you work a sixth day it's double time. Except they rarely pay double time and go to great lengths to avoid it. Same with topping out in 7 to 8 years. We all know better now but many a newhire is led to believe it'll happen. FedEx is very practiced at telling people all the wonderful things they'll get if they sign on, with no intention of ever coming through. Same with saying an opportunity exists to be an independent contractor. It's contracted labor, but it's not independent. At least not at the level of control they exercise. Sharp guys like you may do well in that system, but there are those who aren't prepared for the reality who are drawn in by clever promises with the only winner in that scenario being the company. More grist for the mill.

 

[bbsam]

I've heard mgrs sell the idea of taking a 4X10 route by saying if you work a sixth day it's double time. Except they rarely pay double time and go to great lengths to avoid it. Same with topping out in 7 to 8 years. We all know better now but many a newhire is led to believe it'll happen. FedEx is very practiced at telling people all the wonderful things they'll get if they sign on, with no intention of ever coming through. Same with saying an opportunity exists to be an independent contractor. It's contracted labor, but it's not independent. At least not at the level of control they exercise. Sharp guys like you may do well in that system, but there are those who aren't prepared for the reality who are drawn in by clever promises with the only winner in that scenario being the company. More grist for the mill.

Very true. None of that makes the model a scam and the article shows how what I have been saying is true: If you want to kill the model, you have to change the law.
Fedex has a long history of bad management in contracting. A lot of that has to do with local management feeling pressure to get results. The contract is very clear about what a breach consists of and the possible ramifications are but many local managers will "threaten" contracts regularly to gain compliance. That brings serious problems and many of the lawsuits.
I don't think the law is going to change any time soon. I still think the idea floated in another forum makes a lot of sense. If a law firm were to devote a portion of its staff to something like "contract dispute resolution" things could work better for all involved. So when SM comes to bbsam inc. and says "'at the discretion of the contractor' doesn't mean it's up to you", I could direct his declarative to a legal department that is basically on retainer by 30000 contractors. Fedex would save a lot in lawsuits, bad management would be rooted out, contractors would have recourse other than the in house tow-the-liners in "contractor relations". The problem is that most law firms aren't interested in representing this type of contract law or in scrapping the model or in social justice. That's not where the money is. The money is in class action law suits.

 

[M I Indy]

And the law says Fedex can have no control?

Sure they can, same control as any customer, which is what they testify to be.

 

[bbsam]

Sure they can, same control as any customer, which is what they testify to be.

Face it. Law firms like the ones you suggest to work with are all about the class action lawsuit money. Nothing wrong with that, but they're just part of the game too.

 

[M I Indy]

Very true. None of that makes the model a scam and the article shows how what I have been saying is true: If you want to kill the model, you have to change the law.
Fedex has a long history of bad management in contracting. A lot of that has to do with local management feeling pressure to get results. The contract is very clear about what a breach consists of and the possible ramifications are but many local managers will "threaten" contracts regularly to gain compliance. That brings serious problems and many of the lawsuits.
I don't think the law is going to change any time soon. I still think the idea floated in another forum makes a lot of sense. If a law firm were to devote a portion of its staff to something like "contract dispute resolution" things could work better for all involved. So when SM comes to bbsam inc. and says "'at the discretion of the contractor' doesn't mean it's up to you", I could direct his declarative to a legal department that is basically on retainer by 30000 contractors. Fedex would save a lot in lawsuits, bad management would be rooted out, contractors would have recourse other than the in house tow-the-liners in "contractor relations". The problem is that most law firms aren't interested in representing this type of contract law or in scrapping the model or in social justice. That's not where the money is. The money is in class action law suits.

Shows what you have been saying is true? How? Change the law? Why? As long as both sides work within spirit and intent of the law. When you become a corporation, you are compelled to do this, since you have been afforded the entitlement. You are supposed to exercise this, since you now control employees. Why can't you subcontract like X? Both of you are corporations. Oh, because they wrote in the contract you can't, no control there. Sounds like a tail, but, let's call it a leg, yeah that will make it so. Idea? Makes a lot of sense! Word "floated" is the key in that sentence. Only one with that idea is YOU. Keep grabbing them out of the sky. Retainer by 30,000 plus? That would be a binding agreement. Are you sure you would want to go there? What happens when the "department" says you can't do it the way you want, will you still pay the retainer, or will you say "screw you" I ain't paying for something I don't like? Again, a shot at those you wish to represent you, not where the money is. Maybe this wouldn't be an issue if X wished to correctly represent this type of contract law or social justice, but, that's not where the money is! Please take up reading, you might learn something; fairy tales, unicorns, X contract, can be found in the fantasy section of your favorite book store. I suggest you stop at the section just before it, the one titled, fact.

 

[bbsam]

Shows what you have been saying is true? How? Change the law? Why? As long as both sides work within spirit and intent of the law. When you become a corporation, you are compelled to do this, since you have been afforded the entitlement. You are supposed to exercise this, since you now control employees. Why can't you subcontract like X? Both of you are corporations. Oh, because they wrote in the contract you can't, no control there. Sounds like a tail, but, let's call it a leg, yeah that will make it so. Idea? Makes a lot of sense! Word "floated" is the key in that sentence. Only one with that idea is YOU. Keep grabbing them out of the sky. Retainer by 30,000 plus? That would be a binding agreement. Are you sure you would want to go there? What happens when the "department" says you can't do it the way you want, will you still pay the retainer, or will you say "screw you" I ain't paying for something I don't like? Again, a shot at those you wish to represent you, not where the money is. Maybe this wouldn't be an issue if X wished to correctly represent this type of contract law or social justice, but, that's not where the money is! Please take up reading, you might learn something; fairy tales, unicorns, X contract, can be found in the fantasy section of your favorite book store. I suggest you stop at the section just before it, the one titled, fact.

You have blinders on. X isn't the only corporation that plays this game and as long as the law allows companies to play fast and loose they will.

And no. I'd take a binding agreement with a law firm. Far better than contractor relations and at the very least would put a fast halt to rogue local management.

 

[M I Indy]

I like how everyone is interpreting this article as to how it is written. Suddenly the reporter has the entire case and all wrapped up in the thousand or so words given to them by their editor. Can't believe just what you read. Maybe, Reggie has a hard time expressing what happened in perfect text or legalese. As Sammy stated, X lawyer's are not a bunch of Cousin Vinny's, yet Reggie the boohoo kicked their butt. Why? Because the evidence presented showed he was wronged. Maybe he was told to buy an econoline for the job. That it is was the only vehicle to meet X specifications that were in place at the time. Maybe manifest was a paper sheet when he contracted and was never told he would be forced to lease a scanner down the road. Addendums were handed down almost as much as settlement checks in those days. You folks should read the "decision", review evidence presented, possibly contact the law firm that represented Reggie now that case is over and they no longer have any skin in the game. I guess it's more fun to just throw out nonsense with no knowledge. I commend Reggie, right or wrong, for standing up for his belief that he was wronged. Reggie asked the question, good for him, because if you never ask the answer is always no. No class action here, Sammy, just a firm trying to right a wrong, whatever their payout was, you can rest assured it outspent its return, with X delays and procedural nonsense.