Originally Posted by
FDXLAG
Or the judge thinks a contract is a contract and ought to be binding on those who entered it with their eyes wide open.?
Apparently that's what this decision was based upon, rather than the true nature of the work being done.
Are you saying those signs I see around my shopping center that say "wanted Fedex Ground Drivers call xxx-xxxx" are mythical?
They must be, since FedEx doesn't "employ" ground drivers.
Tell your friends if they want to actually become an employee of Fedex, they should fill out an application to work at Fedex.
I only know one, and he's trying to get on with UPS, as the pay and benefits there are substantially better. If he is successful, it will come as a loss to FedEx, "employee" or not.
I believe in personal responsibility, and they were never offered employment. They get what they asked for, an opportunity to be an independent contractor.
I too, believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe in corporate responsibility. If a company employs a person to fill a position within the organization, that person should not be denied status as an "employee" just because payroll and work assignments are channeled through a third-party or shell corporation. All these guys and gals are "asking for" as you put it, is that their efforts to make FedEx an excellent service provider be acknowledged by the parent corporation.
When UPS was trying to scab DHL's flying, should they have been offered jobs at DHL?
I sense a thread-drift starting here, but here goes anyway...UPS never "scabbed" DHL's flying. DHL
tried to get UPS to do their flying (after they and FedEx couldn't come to an agreement to do it) but it was all done in strict accordance with the labor contract that was in existence at the time. DHL
did try to get preferential interviews at UPS, but...
