The "Fedex Express language" avoidance maneuver
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Posts: 43
The "Fedex Express language" avoidance maneuver
Opposition to the "Fedex Express language" to the omnibus spending bill by the good US Senators from Tennessee this past week was nothing more than FDX management's successful lobbying effort to maintain a competitive cost advantage by depriving the ground delivery drivers the right to organize locally and negotiate an industry standard wage for the job they do. (Everyone else who does their job is not covered by RLA, but NLRA). Under RLA, it is nearly impossible for this group to organize since it will take a national effort and vote, not a local one.
This whole scheme of paying home delivery drivers as private contractors (using 1099s vs. W-2s) while at the same time arguing that they are airline employees seems like a real house of cards. What a deal for management: No benefits, no health care coverage, no retirement, and best of all, the US government's capitulation in maintaining a labor law loophole that provides nearly no chance for these "employees" to organize locally.
Does the one labor organization on the FDX property (ALPA) condone or condemn this labor practice? Does the pilot group support management's position or are they siding with organized labor on this provision (a.k.a. "Fedex Express language)?
This whole scheme of paying home delivery drivers as private contractors (using 1099s vs. W-2s) while at the same time arguing that they are airline employees seems like a real house of cards. What a deal for management: No benefits, no health care coverage, no retirement, and best of all, the US government's capitulation in maintaining a labor law loophole that provides nearly no chance for these "employees" to organize locally.
Does the one labor organization on the FDX property (ALPA) condone or condemn this labor practice? Does the pilot group support management's position or are they siding with organized labor on this provision (a.k.a. "Fedex Express language)?
#3
The IRS issued a ruling for 2002 only. The billion dollar amount is what could be owed if all subsequent years are counted in the same way. Class action lawsuits are separate and filed in different jurisdictions.
FedEx was wrong to classify the drivers as independent contractors, but it was a brilliant move on its part to save untold amounts of money over the years. This scheme (and the use of the word is an understatement) reminds me of Enron. A not-so-ethical lawyer friend of mine once said:"now why didn't I think of that first?"
FedEx was wrong to classify the drivers as independent contractors, but it was a brilliant move on its part to save untold amounts of money over the years. This scheme (and the use of the word is an understatement) reminds me of Enron. A not-so-ethical lawyer friend of mine once said:"now why didn't I think of that first?"
#4
The IRS issued a ruling for 2002 only. The billion dollar amount is what could be owed if all subsequent years are counted in the same way. Class action lawsuits are separate and filed in different jurisdictions.
FedEx was wrong to classify the drivers as independent contractors, but it was a brilliant move on its part to save untold amounts of money over the years. This scheme (and the use of the word is an understatement) reminds me of Enron. A not-so-ethical lawyer friend of mine once said:"now why didn't I think of that first?"
FedEx was wrong to classify the drivers as independent contractors, but it was a brilliant move on its part to save untold amounts of money over the years. This scheme (and the use of the word is an understatement) reminds me of Enron. A not-so-ethical lawyer friend of mine once said:"now why didn't I think of that first?"
#5
Like all business enterprises, FedEx is out to make money for management, board members and shareholders. It's possible someone weighed the whole thing and thought the chances of the drivers getting up in arms about the intentional misclassification was small. If FedEx can push the mighty ALPA around, surely it can grind a few independent contractors to the dirt without much notice from anyone else.
The way things are, there is an IRS ruling for one year and a Massachusetts court ruling. There is no telling when the other rulings might come down the pipeline. Any final penalty will be appealed. Think of all the money it saved over the years off the backs of the drivers. It was worth it at the time and it will spend more money to continue to justify that long ago decision.
If "labor" and "brotherhood" are to mean anything at all, I think ALPA should be supportive of the drivers. But then, I'm only a street lawyer who has spent my entire career defending the underdog and the disenfranchised. What do I know.
The way things are, there is an IRS ruling for one year and a Massachusetts court ruling. There is no telling when the other rulings might come down the pipeline. Any final penalty will be appealed. Think of all the money it saved over the years off the backs of the drivers. It was worth it at the time and it will spend more money to continue to justify that long ago decision.
If "labor" and "brotherhood" are to mean anything at all, I think ALPA should be supportive of the drivers. But then, I'm only a street lawyer who has spent my entire career defending the underdog and the disenfranchised. What do I know.
#6
Like all business enterprises, FedEx is out to make money for management, board members and shareholders. It's possible someone weighed the whole thing and thought the chances of the drivers getting up in arms about the intentional misclassification was small. If FedEx can push the mighty ALPA around, surely it can grind a few independent contractors to the dirt without much notice from anyone else.
The way things are, there is an IRS ruling for one year and a Massachusetts court ruling. There is no telling when the other rulings might come down the pipeline. Any final penalty will be appealed. Think of all the money it saved over the years off the backs of the drivers. It was worth it at the time and it will spend more money to continue to justify that long ago decision.
If "labor" and "brotherhood" are to mean anything at all, I think ALPA should be supportive of the drivers. But then, I'm only a street lawyer who has spent my entire career defending the underdog and the disenfranchised. What do I know.
The way things are, there is an IRS ruling for one year and a Massachusetts court ruling. There is no telling when the other rulings might come down the pipeline. Any final penalty will be appealed. Think of all the money it saved over the years off the backs of the drivers. It was worth it at the time and it will spend more money to continue to justify that long ago decision.
If "labor" and "brotherhood" are to mean anything at all, I think ALPA should be supportive of the drivers. But then, I'm only a street lawyer who has spent my entire career defending the underdog and the disenfranchised. What do I know.
Aren't most court rulings of this type harmful to the bottom line of companies in the long run? I guess if you were in charge and saw something like this and knew you were gonna retire in the next XX years.....your bonus or compensation was based on bottom line.....then maybe I can see it. It will be interesting how this plays out..........
#7
"Does the one labor organization on the FDX property (ALPA) condone or condemn this labor practice?"
With all due respect, you've got to be kidding. FedEx pilots (as a group) trying to help someone other than themselves if there is nothing in it for them, no way!
Just read some of the other posts, you pick the subject, and see how self centered and short sighted this group is. Just look at all the complaining over no more Purple Tails Forum, yet the moderators admit that we take to much time and effort because we cannot get along.
No guts, no glory....talks cheap.
With all due respect, you've got to be kidding. FedEx pilots (as a group) trying to help someone other than themselves if there is nothing in it for them, no way!
Just read some of the other posts, you pick the subject, and see how self centered and short sighted this group is. Just look at all the complaining over no more Purple Tails Forum, yet the moderators admit that we take to much time and effort because we cannot get along.
No guts, no glory....talks cheap.
#8
This whole scheme of paying home delivery drivers as private contractors (using 1099s vs. W-2s) while at the same time arguing that they are airline employees seems like a real house of cards. What a deal for management: No benefits, no health care coverage, no retirement, and best of all, the US government's capitulation in maintaining a labor law loophole that provides nearly no chance for these "employees" to organize locally.
Clear as mud?
Z
#9
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Posts: 43
With all due respect, the problem is that the RLA does apply to Fedex Ground, due to an amendment that FDX was able to insert into legislation several years ago, thanks to Sen. Trent Lott.
The "Fedex Express language" was designed to ensure workers who work in the FDX ground business were afforded the right to be governed by the correct (and less restrictive) set of labor laws (NLRA). As of today, if a set of FDX ground drivers want to organize locally, similar to any other ground driver at any other company, they can't due to the fact they are technically governed by RLA.
The "Fedex Express language" was designed to ensure workers who work in the FDX ground business were afforded the right to be governed by the correct (and less restrictive) set of labor laws (NLRA). As of today, if a set of FDX ground drivers want to organize locally, similar to any other ground driver at any other company, they can't due to the fact they are technically governed by RLA.
Last edited by UPSierra; 12-26-2007 at 04:56 AM.
#10
Roadway Package System (RPS) was acquired by FedEx Corp in 1998, and renamed "FedEx Ground" in 2000 (at the same time FedEx Express was renamed). The NLRB ruled in 2001 that employees of FedEx Ground were governed under the NLRA. Up until now, this has been a moot point, since the largest groups at FedEx Ground -- the couriers and drivers -- have been independent contractors and not employees, and therefore had no need to unionize.
The "Fedex Express language" was designed to ensure workers who work in the FDX ground business were afforded the right to be governed by the correct (and less restrictive) set of labor laws (NLRA). As of today, if a set of FDX ground drivers want to organize locally, similar to any other ground driver at any other company, they can't due to the fact they are technically governed by RLA.
Confused yet? I know I am.
Z
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
0
06-23-2005 02:50 PM