golfandfly

Sorry Danny Boy, but the courts see it as I do. They bid jobs as contractors, and work as contractors. Tell your friends if they want to actually become an employee of Fedex, they should fill out an application to work at Fedex.

I'm not a company lackey, but I can find no reason that Fedex should be required to hire them. I believe in personal responsibility, and they were never offered employment. They get what they asked for, an opportunity to be an independent contractor...

When UPS was trying to scab DHL's flying, should they have been offered jobs at DHL?

Whistlin' Dan

Apparently that's what this decision was based upon, rather than the true nature of the work being done.They must be, since FedEx doesn't "employ" ground drivers.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 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.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...

golfandfly

Dan,

I wish your friend luck on his opportunity at UPS. I hope we can get by without him.

"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."

No, these "guys and gals" are asking the courts to force Fedex to make them employees. They are being acknowledged by getting paid for the work that they do. They were never offered employment. Fedex didn't beg these guys to take this work, they sought these positions. This is just another example of our entitled society....

FrankTheTank

Reality: I have a group of buds that are truck drivers and most said they wish they worked for UPS because of pay and benefits. However, UPS also has Many, Many temps that do not receive all those benefits and that is how they skirt around some contract/teamster issues. And that is a problem for leaving their current position to start over at UPS. (if they can even crack that shell-most have to become a temp to ultimately become a driver)

I have 2 buds that drive for UPS Feeders and 1 for UPS Freight. They have 2 VERY different contracts but since they work for UPS shouldn't it be the same?

My point is not everything is as obvious as it would seem. There is a lot of gray; legal precidence is established whether we agree or not, especially when I talk to my UPS Freight neighbor and compare it to my other UPS driver friends.

Jetjok

Dan,

Your arguments fly in the face of reality, because in todays' work environment, many companies, who have downsized in the past, have elected, for whatever reason, to bring workers on as "consultants", or "contractors." In fact, here in the insurance capital of the world (Hartford, Connecticut), many of the large insurers have laid off tons of workers, only to rehire lots of them as consultants, or individual contractors. They even work on the exact same stuff they worked on when they were actual employees. In fact, in many cases, these individuals are better off, because although they don't receive the same benefit packages that someone doing the identical job, who is an "employee" would be getting, they are compensated by receiving a higher salary than they did as an "employee." And again, if they didn't want to do the work, or thought that they were getting a raw deal, well, they could have just turned it down. Most folks don't. As well, this technique is not just applied in the private sector, but also in Government, from your local to your national, with lots and lots of people working for the Federal Government, doing the same job as the federal employee they sit next to, but as a contractor, either working for themselves, or working through another firm, who bills the government directly and then cuts a payroll check for the guy actually doing the work.

JJ

The Walrus

Every time that I log onto APC, this thread says "Last Page", but it never is. There is always more.