Perhaps, when the next CEO starts franchising air routes to "independent contractors" it will be apparent why fair and proper employee-classification is important to job growth and security.[/QUOTE]

Didn't UPS attempt to do this with DHL's US routes. What was UPS's stance on that?

“We believe this arrangement with DHL would represent a wise use of our assets and network capacity while creating a substantial and profitable revenue stream for our company,” said David P. Abney, UPS’s chief operating officer. “We plan to move forward quickly on the final contract.”

I see the grave concern for the working men and women of DHL/ABX!

I'm glad the union stepped in and saved all those jobs in Wilmington?


Did DHL require them to paint half the plane, ramper equipment, or uniforms yellow or was it just the same thing without as many rules? How did that work out? FedEx (and UPS) do farm out routes and have for quite some time (Feeder routes).

This was a preapproved model used by a small but growing company. The only viable suit's are the ones where the original agreements have been exceeded.

 

[QUOTE=7700;917932]Perhaps, when the next CEO starts franchising air routes to "independent contractors" it will be apparent why fair and proper employee-classification is important to job growth and security.[/QUOTE]

Didn't UPS attempt to do this with DHL's US routes. What was UPS's stance on that?

“We believe this arrangement with DHL would represent a wise use of our assets and network capacity while creating a substantial and profitable revenue stream for our company,” said David P. Abney, UPS’s chief operating officer. “We plan to move forward quickly on the final contract.”

I see the grave concern for the working men and women of DHL/ABX!

I'm glad the union stepped in and saved all those jobs in Wilmington?


Did DHL require them to paint half the plane, ramper equipment, or uniforms yellow or was it just the same thing without as many rules? How did that work out? FedEx (and UPS) do farm out routes and have for quite some time (Feeder routes).

This was a preapproved model used by a small but growing company. The only viable suit's are the ones where the original agreements have been exceeded.[/QUOTE]

 

A ridiculous argument. Of course if you "follow the money" it leads back to Fedex. Do you think it would be UPS?

Unlike the "independent contractors", the pilots are employees at Fedex. We have a contract and scope agreements in place. I'm certainly not saying anything is safe, but the "independent contractors" knew the deal when they bid the work. If they were guaranteed employment by Fedex in these signed agreements, I'd say they have a strong argument. Unfortunately for them, they don't.

Fedex contracts work from multiple sources. If you "follow the money", you will find that the people that clean the lavs, cater our meals, sometimes work on our aircraft, etc, are contractors. UPS does the same. The janitors in most of our offices are contractors. Fedex tells them what/where to clean, what time to be there, etc. Should we give them jobs too?

I'm not sure why they think Fedex should make them employees. I can see why the courts decided in Fedex's favor..

 

Too many quotes to make the effort.

1. Because the FAA wont let you is a very good reason for why farming out the air routes is not a very good business model.

2. I asked my guy who signs his paycheck and he is paid by a guy who has a contract with fedex, not fedex. To the long list of other contractor fedex uses add the bus drivers. Very similar setup to the fedex ground contractors do they have another means of delivering the pilots to the acft?

3. Franchisee and sub contracting are different animals. But a similar species. Mcdonalds does own and run some restaurants. They could survive without franchisees, but their costs would go way up. The franchise system provides Mcdonalds with a way to expand their product availabilty in a way that is transparent to the customer. When you buy a burger or your ground package gets delivered you dont know (or, more importantly, care) if you are dealing with a corporate employee or someone under contract to the corporation. But you do know (and care) that the product is backed by the corporation.

 

If those people are contractually bound to perform those services ONLY for you and for no others, and perform that work in strict accordance with your instructions, on your property and using your materials while wearing uniforms that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that they were, in fact, FedEx employees, then NO, you shouldn't offer them "jobs." What you should do is offer them FedEx employee ID badges and be done with it.

I'm not sure why either, but I think the fact that they show up for work at a FedEx facility every day wearing FedEx uniforms, driving FedEx trucks and delivering FedEx boxes to FedEx customers in exactly the manner FedEx specifies may have had something to do with it...

 

Were the ever offered, or led to believe that they were ever going to be offered employment at Fedex?

Did they realize they were bidding on a contract as opposed to being offered employment at Fedex?

Did they read their contract which specifically lays out what is expected of them? Were they informed that they would where specific uniforms (that say Fedex), drive a truck that says Fedex, and follow rules that were in the contract that they bid on?

Does it matter if a customer believes his product is delivered by an employee or a contractor? Do the vast majority of customers care?

The bottom-line is although a person on the street may think they work foe Fedex, they know that they are a contractor at Fedex. They signed a legal contract that specifically laid out Fedex's rules that they would have to follow.

Did Fedex in any way mislead these contractors to make them believe that they were supposed to be Fedex employees and receive employee benefits from Fedex? Case closed...

 

I thought the contractors owned the trucks. They are just painted in FedEx colors.

 

Your "case" is just that...your case. The issues you raise pertaining to "promises" and "contracts" are not, as I understand it, the ones that the court was asked to consider in determining this case.

The crux of this case has nothing to do with what employees were told, what was in their contract, or what the customers perceive. What is at issue is very simple;

"Do FedEx delivery people work for FedEx, or do they work for some mythical, magical 'third-party' that seems to exist only in the mind of Fred Smith, his minions and legal staff, and operates completely independently of FedEx?"

Using a fair and reasonable interpretation of the word "independent" the answer would seem to be clear, that they DO in fact work for FedEx. The judge has ruled otherwise, however. Perhaps the word "independent" has different connotations in legal parlance than it does in common usage? In any case, it will be interesting to see where this ends-up on appeal.

 

Some do, some are leased. FedEx helps set up the leases. They are, but FedEx owns the paint. (It's a decal, actually)

 

Or the judge thinks a contract is a contract and ought to be binding on those who entered it with their eyes wide open.

Are you saying those signs I see around my shopping center that say "wanted Fedex Ground Drivers call xxx-xxxx" are mythical?