starch in your nightie tonight?
FedEx Ground
- Thread starter Jakeem Simon
- Start date
I already said that. It's an exaggeration to illustrate the point and the point is that while courts have declared that X operated illegally in classifying employees as contractors, they did not demand switching away from a contractor model. Everything X has done in ISP has been designed to maintain the contractor structure while changing the model to conform to the objections raised by the courts.
To get away from half-wits like yourself, I wouldn't mind at all. I put you in the very same class of the little brat in the "I hate FedEx" YouTube video
For you.... It's all made up. Clarify reality? Haha. Your objective as ambASSador is to cloud not clarify, just like management that you hero worship. You divert to spelling when you can't answer, like your heroes go to tread depth when they can't. You can't clarify.....when you are in a jaded hero worship. No objectivity..... I know I'm just disgruntled, since GT says so, even though the courts say otherwise. Keep up the Baghdad Bob defense. You FEEL dry even if you're in water up to your neck.
I'm sure the other countries will let you and X get away with your questionable labor practices.
Half-wit? Your getting taken for a ride and your too blind to see it. Although, I think you do see it but aren't doing anything about it because you like being told how to run "your business". That's because you are not capable of really being independent.
Do you think X is any closer to giving up the contractor model today than they were 10 years ago?
I know you want to offend me, but the fact of the ambiguity of contract law are on my side and strongly suggest that very, very little will change.
It's a good ride. Put in a couple hours of work for the week bring home a large settlement check........ Better than Disneyland.
Once again, this is a matter that is going to be litigated for years to come. In any litigation involving the post 2011 years the question of why FXG contractors can not sublet their routes to other contractors will no doubt be a major point of argument given that it's ok for X to use contractors but contractors are required to use only employees. The defense of that practice is going to take a lot more than parables and fables and will be used by the plaintiffs to show that X is clearly attempting to govern and control the level and degree of independence and autonomy available to an X contractor. As a side note There is a deal in place to raise the California minimum wage to $15 an hour. Could that explain why there are more Ca multi route operations going on the market?
I would be a little surprised by that, not completely but a little bit. Where I live in a much much cheaper cost of living state than California, I can barely start someone under $15 an hour. No way can I keep them there for longer than a month or two. I don't see how there would be anyway that anyone would work for that cheap in that expensive of a state.
There is a lot for sale in my state too.
The contractors that bought to get to scale here realize they have been duped and are trying to dump this mess.
Why do you have the need to control them? Why can't you hire a local delivery service and subcontract through them???? Let them worry about control???? It is fedex's control that makes you an employee, not whether you control your drivers. Fedex has been found in court to be the employer even if a contractor has people he controls. You are nothing but an employee manager for fedex and don't know any better.
You keep proving your ignorance. Courts aren't there to tell companies what they can do. They are only there to tell companies if what they are currently doing is legal. No court has ever told fedex that their current model is legal. The courts have stated only that the IC model is illegal. For you to imagine that fedex has court approval for the ISP model shows how little you know about how courts work.
Or the logical explanation which goes back for over a decade. California, Florida, and Texas have always had the most routes up for sale on every site due to the size, population, and/or density of the state.
Or it may be a case where operations were purchased by speculators whose intent was to flip them like houses and discovered that the profit margins wouldn't support
appreciation at the rate they desired. The "fast buck freddy's" will disappear quickly and only the long term operator will be left to slug it out with X.
appreciation at the rate they desired. The "fast buck freddy's" will disappear quickly and only the long term operator will be left to slug it out with X.
You are so small-minded. Like a child.
I still talk to most of the contractors in my terminal and trust me non of them are happy about how this was forced upon them, and they are hoping to find a sucker to dump it on.
Same here Bounty. The main gripe I hear from the guys I worked with who are still at the terminal is being called upon to put more money at risk with no control over it's fate while at the same time are totally dependent on people they know little about who owe them nothing and have nothing to look forward to being willing to go out there in all kinds of weather and road conditions every day and protect the interests of that contractor.
