New branding!

[MAKAVELI]

That's where the contractors come in, to suppress wages creating an artificial wage low enough to bring down overall wages in the industry. A counter to UPS.

It sure isn't suppressing UPS wages. They have been able to suppress Express wages though but that is quickly turning against them. They can no longer find quality employees that are willing to stay for the wages with no progression and lack of pension benefits.

 

[Exec32]

It sure isn't suppressing UPS wages. They have been able to suppress Express wages though but that is quickly turning against them. They can no longer find quality employees that are willing to stay for the wages with no progression and lack of pension benefits.

I don't know, X ground played a role in keeping package cost down for the consumer, in turn reducing UPS ability to raise rates. It can then be assumed that the outcome was stagnated wage growth for UPS. I mean hell how much more could UPS drivers AND UPS be making now if X never purchased RPS.
It is obvious the effect on wages at express were more directly impacted.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I don't know, X ground played a role in keeping package cost down for the consumer, in turn reducing UPS ability to raise rates. It can then be assumed that the outcome was stagnated wage growth for UPS. I mean hell how much more could UPS drivers AND UPS be making now if X never purchased RPS.
It is obvious the effect on wages at express were more directly impacted.

Ground has not forced UPS to drive down shipping cost competitive but not down.
FedEx, UPS moved in unison to hike ground delivery rates since '06, firm says – DC Velocity

 

[bacha29]

Ground has not forced UPS to drive down shipping cost competitive but not down.
FedEx, UPS moved in unison to hike ground delivery rates since '06, firm says – DC Velocity

Of course their base rate is the same. It's been that way for years. What the article failed to mention was the size of the discount offered to the shipper or efforts to flat out buy the business as evidenced a few years back when UPS walked into L.L. Bean and dumped 8 million dollars on the table and said" we want your business".

 

[bacha29]

Of course their base rate is the same. It's been that way for years. What the article failed to mention was the size of the discount offered to the shipper or efforts to flat out buy the business as evidenced a few years back when UPS walked into L.L. Bean and dumped 8 million dollars on the table and said" we want your business".

 

[Exec32]

Ground has not forced UPS to drive down shipping cost competitive but not down.
FedEx, UPS moved in unison to hike ground delivery rates since '06, firm says – DC Velocity

They both made concessions, but one without the other, there are no concessions

 

[MAKAVELI]

Of course their base rate is the same. It's been that way for years. What the article failed to mention was the size of the discount offered to the shipper or efforts to flat out buy the business as evidenced a few years back when UPS walked into L.L. Bean and dumped 8 million dollars on the table and said" we want your business".

Competition is part of every business and industry nothing new. NFC L.L.Bean has dropped considerably over the years due to Amazon huge presence in ecommerce.

 

[dmac1]

Buying more planes, trucks and acquiring TNT is not shrinking my friend. You said you're not with ground anymore. You must have some serious cash invested in the scam to be such a ground cheerleader.

I sued fedex and won.

Planes, trucks, and TNT means they are planning for more volume, not who is going to deliver to the customer. You should know that.

I am not a ground cheerleader, I just realize that they have an obligation to make as much money as possible, and that means reducing costs. If fedex paid employees minimum wage, they would get a bad rap, so they can't lower wages that way. Instead, they contract out all the deliveries, and if the contractor pays minimum wage, it doesn't really hurt fedex's public image. Trying to explain to the public that it really is fedex paying low wages and how fedex uses contractors is way beyond what anyone would even listen to.

The new ISP model is going to be hard to fight. Worst outcome would be if a contractor went broke and didn't pay a driver, or if a driver was injured due to a contractors negligence, that driver could be found to be a co-employee of fedex and the contractor, leaving fedex with a little liability. A contractor is going to have no recourse against fedex for any employee rights, just rights under normal contract law.

So fedex is really going to make the switch to all ISP and those ISPs will be responsible to get packages delivered. If some obscure law requires employee drivers for air, fedex may have a few employee drivers. So the drivers will not be contract drivers like you claim, the drivers WILL be employees, with all the rights employees have, but employees of the ISP. Only in a few areas will they have any legal recourse against fedex, and the amount they get paid will not be one of those areas. It is why fedex changed the contract a few years back to require that contractors pay all drivers as employees and require UI and worker's comp be paid by the contractor. Almost all the claims and lawsuits fedex faced over employee status started over unemployment case, and minimum wage claims. Fedex will need to ensure that minimum wage is being met, or they may face liability for that.

But anytime labor is the biggest discretionary cost to a company, it becomes the biggest target for increasing dividends to stockholders. Fedex express employees have that target, not only for direct employee costs, but also for the extra terminals and an entire fleet of vehicles.

The writing is already there, if you know enough to look in the right places.

 

[dmac1]

It all ties in and TNT will be apart of Express. They're not shrinking Express they're trying to control costs and those cost being wages but it's not working them

Even if TNT is part of express, express will be delivered by ground.

 

[Exec32]

I sued fedex and won.

Planes, trucks, and TNT means they are planning for more volume, not who is going to deliver to the customer. You should know that.

I am not a ground cheerleader, I just realize that they have an obligation to make as much money as possible, and that means reducing costs. If fedex paid employees minimum wage, they would get a bad rap, so they can't lower wages that way. Instead, they contract out all the deliveries, and if the contractor pays minimum wage, it doesn't really hurt fedex's public image. Trying to explain to the public that it really is fedex paying low wages and how fedex uses contractors is way beyond what anyone would even listen to.

The new ISP model is going to be hard to fight. Worst outcome would be if a contractor went broke and didn't pay a driver, or if a driver was injured due to a contractors negligence, that driver could be found to be a co-employee of fedex and the contractor, leaving fedex with a little liability. A contractor is going to have no recourse against fedex for any employee rights, just rights under normal contract law.

So fedex is really going to make the switch to all ISP and those ISPs will be responsible to get packages delivered. If some obscure law requires employee drivers for air, fedex may have a few employee drivers. So the drivers will not be contract drivers like you claim, the drivers WILL be employees, with all the rights employees have, but employees of the ISP. Only in a few areas will they have any legal recourse against fedex, and the amount they get paid will not be one of those areas. It is why fedex changed the contract a few years back to require that contractors pay all drivers as employees and require UI and worker's comp be paid by the contractor. Almost all the claims and lawsuits fedex faced over employee status started over unemployment case, and minimum wage claims. Fedex will need to ensure that minimum wage is being met, or they may face liability for that.

But anytime labor is the biggest discretionary cost to a company, it becomes the biggest target for increasing dividends to stockholders. Fedex express employees have that target, not only for direct employee costs, but also for the extra terminals and an entire fleet of vehicles.

The writing is already there, if you know enough to look in the right places.

You do know clearly then that the evasive tactics by X are well known now.
X was flying under the radar for years before the public media storm.
X has been exposed, and regulatory agencies including Congress and the public in general will no longer turn a blind eye to X raping the economy only to gain a competitive edge at the expense of everyone.
Sounds far fetched? Possibly a few years ago, but other corporations have caught on and jumped on the X model bandwagon only to run into lawsuits in a relatively short period of time.
The cards are stacked against them. ISP is not and will not be their savior. It still flies in the face of the legal and regulatory laws and rules already on the book.
Hard to get over that economic dependence when each and every entity contracted with Fedex was set up to serve X, and ONL X.
If X provided packages for me to receive wwhatever time I wanted, released the packages to me, allowed me to use whatever company resources I see fit,, hire when and who I want using my own process, scan with my choice of scanner, purchase any required equipment from my choice of vendor, ship any other companies product on my trucks with theirs, and go to my company website only for contacts/memos/and changes, then I will completely agree with you that the future is ISP.
SIMPLY PUT, I only need to see X once a year to either sign another contract, or if they don't like my services end it before hand. Last, every ISP WOULD have to show they are not ECONOMICALLY DEPENDENT on fedex by serving other clients raising a sizable income elsewhere.
And by the way for those of you that would like to point out that X requires all this Controll because we use their DOT #.
I say X intentionally does that to exert control under the guise of the FMCSA. The model they seek would require, no demand that we have our own DOT, the increased expense would reflect in OUR increased charges to X.
NOT ONE OF YOU ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM CAN SOLVE THIS.

 

[dmac1]

You do know clearly then that the evasive tactics by X are well known now.
X was flying under the radar for years before the public media storm.
X has been exposed, and regulatory agencies including Congress and the public in general will no longer turn a blind eye to X raping the economy only to gain a competitive edge at the expense of everyone.
Sounds far fetched? Possibly a few years ago, but other corporations have caught on and jumped on the X model bandwagon only to run into lawsuits in a relatively short period of time.
The cards are stacked against them. ISP is not and will not be their savior. It still flies in the face of the legal and regulatory laws and rules already on the book.
Hard to get over that economic dependence when each and every entity contracted with Fedex was set up to serve X, and ONL X.
If X provided packages for me to receive wwhatever time I wanted, released the packages to me, allowed me to use whatever company resources I see fit,, hire when and who I want using my own process, scan with my choice of scanner, purchase any required equipment from my choice of vendor, ship any other companies product on my trucks with theirs, and go to my company website only for contacts/memos/and changes, then I will completely agree with you that the future is ISP.
SIMPLY PUT, I only need to see X once a year to either sign another contract, or if they don't like my services end it before hand. Last, every ISP WOULD have to show they are not ECONOMICALLY DEPENDENT on fedex by serving other clients raising a sizable income elsewhere.
And by the way for those of you that would like to point out that X requires all this Controll because we use their DOT #.
I say X intentionally does that to exert control under the guise of the FMCSA. The model they seek would require, no demand that we have our own DOT, the increased expense would reflect in OUR increased charges to X.
NOT ONE OF YOU ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM CAN SOLVE THIS.

I followed the lawsuits closely and read the arguments and judges reasonings. Using contractors to deliver packages was a problem. But using contractors to provide drivers is a completely different story. Control is not the issue GET THAT POINT. With ISPs, it will be a very different focus. The focus will be on opportunity to expand. With ICs, fedex had actual control over the means and manner of delivery. But fedex doesn't control how an ISP does his job. An ISP can shop more for insurance, decide who to use for payroll, and has more opportunity to expand.
Only if you think that McDonalds franchise employees are actually McDonalds corp employees could you think that an ISP will be ruled to be a fedex employee.

You clearly don't understand the legal issues, and I'm not great at explaining them to you. Just take it that under the new ISP model, the ISP has almost 0 chance of being a fedex employee if he challenges it. And even if one did challenge, fedex would tweak the contract again.

And if any ISP is totally dependent only on fedex, it is the fault of the ISP, not fedex. There is nothing stopping any ISP from getting more work elsewhere. You can buy unmarked vehicles, even economy cars and use them anywhere you want except for fedex deliveries.

The lawsuits were not a lopsided victory in favor of employee status. And the ISP model solved the issues that finally settled it. In some locations, anyone who operated more than one vehicle was excluded. Just having the ability to make profit off the labor of others is more than enough, and fedex now has evidence of a lot more profitable route sales to show entrepreneurial opportunity. That opportunity in most cases outweighs the control factor.

If you want to argue the point, read all the legal decisions and reasoning like I have.

 

[FedExMan]

Customers all ready have a hard enough time figuring out express from ground. It's always easy to tell them that a ground pick up is for the guy with a purple and GREEN letters on there truck and shirt. (that is if they aren't in a budget rental truck)

 

[MAKAVELI]

I sued fedex and won.

Planes, trucks, and TNT means they are planning for more volume, not who is going to deliver to the customer.

Even if TNT is part of express, express will be delivered by

Exactly.

 

[59 Dano]

I'm not sure what the risk would be. We have to assume if they were to do it, it would be legal, so lets take that off the table as a risk. So then what are we saying? I have 100K employees (throwing out a number) 20K need to remain employees because of X,Y,Z regulations and absolute needs. But 80K aren't any different than ground at sorting, picking up and delivering, on top of that I won't be doubling up drivers in the field, in fact I would have better coverage with overall less man power and equipment on the road.

I have to assume at this point that each contracted person is money saved, at least directly. I still feel Fedex has a lot to win being unified though either way, but I've been told I'm wrong on this one before.

Legal issues aside, it'd be risky to put that much of the operation in the hands of multiple contractors who are obligated to do absolutely nothing more than to fulfill the minimum requirements of their business agreements with FedEx. We've seen contractors who post here and appear to be stand-up guys who aren't going to do more for FedEx than they have to.

FedEx needs a greater degree of control over things than a contractor model would allow them to have.

 

[bacha29]

You do know clearly then that the evasive tactics by X are well known now.
X was flying under the radar for years before the public media storm.
X has been exposed, and regulatory agencies including Congress and the public in general will no longer turn a blind eye to X raping the economy only to gain a competitive edge at the expense of everyone.
Sounds far fetched? Possibly a few years ago, but other corporations have caught on and jumped on the X model bandwagon only to run into lawsuits in a relatively short period of time.
The cards are stacked against them. ISP is not and will not be their savior. It still flies in the face of the legal and regulatory laws and rules already on the book.
Hard to get over that economic dependence when each and every entity contracted with Fedex was set up to serve X, and ONL X.
If X provided packages for me to receive wwhatever time I wanted, released the packages to me, allowed me to use whatever company resources I see fit,, hire when and who I want using my own process, scan with my choice of scanner, purchase any required equipment from my choice of vendor, ship any other companies product on my trucks with theirs, and go to my company website only for contacts/memos/and changes, then I will completely agree with you that the future is ISP.
SIMPLY PUT, I only need to see X once a year to either sign another contract, or if they don't like my services end it before hand. Last, every ISP WOULD have to show they are not ECONOMICALLY DEPENDENT on fedex by serving other clients raising a sizable income elsewhere.
And by the way for those of you that would like to point out that X requires all this Controll because we use their DOT #.
I say X intentionally does that to exert control under the guise of the FMCSA. The model they seek would require, no demand that we have our own DOT, the increased expense would reflect in OUR increased charges to X.
NOT ONE OF YOU ON THIS ENTIRE FORUM CAN SOLVE THIS.

As unbalanced as the terms are YOU SIGNED THAT DAMN CONTRACT. If you know what's is in your best interest decide between TWO OPTIONS. Comply with the terms or get the hell out the then put your convictions to the test in a court of law which is exactly what Dmac1 did. You will never tell X how things will be done as long as your name is on that contract. Remember in the near future you will have to try to strike a deal that will give you the most dollars possible. If they've got it in for you they will low ball you so low that your cash flow will NEVER cover your bills. The choice is YOURS and YOURS alone.

 

[59 Dano]

Air ops has nothing to do with driving the last couple miles to or from the customer location, any driver can do that and ground will do it at lowest cost, and if the contractor in charge fails, he is risking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars he has invested. He had a lot more at stake on getting the packages delivered on time than any current fedex driver.

I'd give that idea the benefit of the doubt if it weren't for the fact that we've stopped hiring Ground guys for Express in this area because they struggle with having to set up a route and make time commitments. You can't just throw a guy a in a truck and tell him to have at it with the Express service.

 

[Exec32]

As unbalanced as the terms are YOU SIGNED THAT DAMN CONTRACT. If you know what's is in your best interest decide between TWO OPTIONS. Comply with the terms or get the hell out the then put your convictions to the test in a court of law which is exactly what Dmac1 did. You will never tell X how things will be done as long as your name is on that contract. Remember in the near future you will have to try to strike a deal that will give you the most dollars possible. If they've got it in for you they will low ball you so low that your cash flow will NEVER cover your bills. The choice is YOURS and YOURS alone.

I signed it. I live on the wild side, reckless.
I agree I will never tell X how things will be done with their company, however I will tell them how things are done at mine.
Look I have very difficult areas to cover, provide excellent service and have reliable drivers, no debt.
I'm X worst nightmare, sort of

 

[59 Dano]

Again you are downgrading the capabilities of ground contractors. As you've ignored before, ground contractors will have a lot more at risk in getting all packages delivered satisfactorily than ANY current express driver has. The only thing an express driver risks if failing to meet times is his job. A contractor risks hundreds of thousands of dollars potentially if he fails to provide adequate service.

Express had enough trouble finding and keeping good employees, and that's with OT pay, insurance, a week of paid sick time, 2 to 5 weeks of vacation for most employees, 6 paid holidays, 2 personal days, 2 floating holidays, and matching 401k program.

You think you can provide adequate service with the quality of employee you attract by paying significantly less than that. LOL.

 

[59 Dano]

That statement doesn't make sense to me at all. I am sure it depends on what side of the spectrum you want to look at but they make way too much money and too much margin to abandon contractors. Along with the fact of requiring everyone to get to ISP standards then taking everything from every contractor, you think there were lawsuits before, 100% unity across the nation would not be good for them.

You hit the nail on the head. Too much money to lose. Even with legal expenses Ground is a cash cow.

 

[59 Dano]

I don't know, X ground played a role in keeping package cost down for the consumer, in turn reducing UPS ability to raise rates. It can then be assumed that the outcome was stagnated wage growth for UPS. I mean hell how much more could UPS drivers AND UPS be making now if X never purchased RPS.
It is obvious the effect on wages at express were more directly impacted.

RPS would simply be doing what Ground is doing now. Same effect.