New branding!

[MAKAVELI]

= 59 Dano.

It's hilarious. This guy or gal doesn't even work for FedEx anymore but knows for certain they are handing the keys to Ground and knows how it will be done. He's either trolling or a freakin genius. Lol

 

[dmac1]

So no extra costs involved in taking express freight? Got it. Smh

You are now acting like a fool. You know that I never stated that there wereno extra costs. It is always the sign of a losing argument when you need to make false statement.

 

[FedGT]

Closer to a franchise than a real contractor agreement. And since you are so smart, why not inform me of all the necessary elements to be a franchise???? The contractor does have ownership rights to all the deliveries in the contracted areas. You should know that. Instead of a contractor scam the banks won't lend on, it's more like a franchise scam they won't lend on. But the contractor does have rights to the deliveries and money they generate. It is the only value the contract has.

Are you going to tell me that a Stanley Steemer franchise isn't really a franchise either????? Every post of yours is proving how little you know about how fedex works their 'contractor' scam.

Did you even read that just because a contract calls a pig a dog doesn't make it legally a dog???? And that is what the ISPs got- a real pig that everyone but you knows is a dog.

Banks are seeing these as viable businesses. SBA is loaning on them upwards of 90% on businesses under $500,000 of goodwill assets and up to 75% of goodwill assets over $500,000

 

[Exec32]

And you are a slow thing. It doesn't matter if it is spelled out in the contract, if it looks like a franchise, acts like a franchise, and sounds like a franchise, legally it is likely to be considered as a franchise, no mater how you and fedex describe it. You bought it, deal with it.

You do mean, looks like an employee, acts like an employee, and sounds like an employee,,,then I am an employee,,,,right?

 

[dmac1]

Banks are seeing these as viable businesses. SBA is loaning on them upwards of 90% on businesses under $500,000 of goodwill assets and up to 75% of goodwill assets over $500,000

I'm not the one who claimed banks won't lend. I was just using his own argument against him.

 

[MAKAVELI]

You are now acting like a fool. You know that I never stated that there wereno extra costs. It is always the sign of a losing argument when you need to make false statement.

The fool is the one who implied it. That would be you.

 

[dmac1]

You do mean, looks like an employee, acts like an employee, and sounds like an employee,,,then I am an employee,,,,right?

An ISP could be found to be an employee on an individual basis, but not likely that the entire class would be like the ICs were. The ISP by definition has entrepreneurial opportunities they have already taken unlike the ICs, most of who had one route and no evidence of entrepreneurialism.

Entrepreneurial opportunity, not control. was THE issue that made employee status for the IC a close call. My belief, and that of my class action attorney is that the ISP has enough opportunity to no longer make it even a close call. You seemingly have no idea on what basis the courts ruled in favor of employee status, or how they came to the conclusion. All of the info is publicly available, so unless you want to continue to sound ignorant to those who know better, you should read up before posting anymore of your nonsense.

 

[Fred's Myth]

If the contractor takes on say 80 extra express packages a day, and fedex pays him $1.50 to get them delivered by the contractors drivers, it will cover the $12,000 and then some.

You really that clueless? That premium is just for haz coverage. You have to cover each truck, just in case. You won't see 80 packages a YEAR on average, per truck. That'll take a real bite out of the bottom line.

 

[Fred's Myth]

If you contractors were smart, YOU would organize and negotiate with X from a position of strength.

 

[Exec32]

Closer to a franchise than a real contractor agreement. And since you are so smart, why not inform me of all the necessary elements to be a franchise???? The contractor does have ownership rights to all the deliveries in the contracted areas. You should know that. Instead of a contractor scam the banks won't lend on, it's more like a franchise scam they won't lend on. But the contractor does have rights to the deliveries and money they generate. It is the only value the contract has.

Are you going to tell me that a Stanley Steemer franchise isn't really a franchise either????? Every post of yours is proving how little you know about how fedex works their 'contractor' scam.

Did you even read that just because a contract calls a pig a dog doesn't make it legally a dog???? And that is what the ISPs got- a real pig that everyone but you knows is a dog.

Element one,
What does X charge me to use their name?
Element 2,
Who do I collect charges from when I provide my service?
And the example you use as a small Stanley steamer franchise in many states are considered independent contractors because of those reasons.
X behaves like a franchisee under the guise of independent contracting, that I can agree with. But it is not franchising.

 

[Exec32]

D

Closer to a franchise than a real contractor agreement. And since you are so smart, why not inform me of all the necessary elements to be a franchise???? The contractor does have ownership rights to all the deliveries in the contracted areas. You should know that. Instead of a contractor scam the banks won't lend on, it's more like a franchise scam they won't lend on. But the contractor does have rights to the deliveries and money they generate. It is the only value the contract has.

Are you going to tell me that a Stanley Steemer franchise isn't really a franchise either????? Every post of yours is proving how little you know about how fedex works their 'contractor' scam.

Did you even read that just because a contract calls a pig a dog doesn't make it legally a dog???? And that is what the ISPs got- a real pig that everyone but you knows is a dog.

Do you know I've been supporting the argument that this is a scam, and by the way I know ISP is a ploy to buy more time.

 

[Exec32]

An ISP could be found to be an employee on an individual basis, but not likely that the entire class would be like the ICs were. The ISP by definition has entrepreneurial opportunities they have already taken unlike the ICs, most of who had one route and no evidence of entrepreneurialism.

Entrepreneurial opportunity, not control. was THE issue that made employee status for the IC a close call. My belief, and that of my class action attorney is that the ISP has enough opportunity to no longer make it even a close call. You seemingly have no idea on what basis the courts ruled in favor of employee status, or how they came to the conclusion. All of the info is publicly available, so unless you want to continue to sound ignorant to those who know better, you should read up before posting anymore of your nonsense.

You and your attorney are putting way to much weight on the entrepreneurial opportunity element to come to that determination. Here are many more things to weigh, in addition to recent interpretations like the DOL, of economic dependence, short sighted by you and your attorney. little ignorant wouldn't you say?

 

[Harrison]

Fedex ground drivers can do everything a fedex express driver can do, including picking up from Kinkos.

Lol, we already pick up from Kinkos. Might as well grab Express' envelopes too.

 

[dmac1]

So my company, my resources, my equipment, my employees...
You know X created this maze. Drafting a contract that actual takes control of everything mentioned above.
I can not take MY trucks to another business and provide services to them while I'm servicing X, according to the contract;, I can not wear what my company desires servicing the community while servicing X, I can not choose what equipment I'm going to use while servicing X (scanner/software application), I can not use my own hiring procedures for my company that i created when contracted with X, should it matter to X who else I service and in what, when I am exercising my right in enterprise to produce income, as long as I get the desired outcome?
In theory your statement may have merit, but in practice it does not. For God sake they demand my company wears their uniforms and their decals on my company trucks, who you claim I can contract to anyone in, and then write clause after clause telling me that I will only service them according to the equipment I own that they approved. Long story short,,,,that equipment and those staff should be able to be deployed to generate income in the most cost effective way as I see fit, even if I'm carrying X product. But X has eliminated that.
By the way I'm mandated to have trucks back to the terminal by 8pm every night, and my start time to deploy (7am) to service all these different companies you claim is often violated by X.
You don't see the problems?
I wonder did that print shop or interstate trucking make those demands to?

There is so much wrong with your post that I don't know where to start. First off, you can use your trucks or buy new ones and use them anywhere you want. And you can do anything you want when you aren't working for fedex. You can hire any driver you want anytime you want, and use them with any other contract you have. You seem like you only want to work for fedex and not be a true businessman and look for other contracts. At one time over 20 years ago, I had 5 overlapping contracts with 5 different companies and made $1000 a week driving a Geo metro because I hustled to find other contracts. I see the difficulties in contracting with fedex. It's a scam for dummies, but you do have a way out if you want. You sound like a crybaby- I can't do this, I can't do that, while not even thinking about what you can do with a fleet of vehicles and drivers.

 

[MAKAVELI]

There is so much wrong with your post that I don't know where to start. First off, you can use your trucks or buy new ones and use them anywhere you want. And you can do anything you want when you aren't working for fedex. You can hire any driver you want anytime you want, and use them with any other contract you have. You seem like you only want to work for fedex and not be a true businessman and look for other contracts. At one time over 20 years ago, I had 5 overlapping contracts with 5 different companies and made $1000 a week driving a Geo metro because I hustled to find other contracts. I see the difficulties in contracting with fedex. It's a scam for dummies, but you do have a way out if you want. You sound like a crybaby- I can't do this, I can't do that, while not even thinking about what you can do with a fleet of vehicles and drivers.

A fleet of drivers that are limited by DOT hos. Remember?

 

[dmac1]

Element one,
What does X charge me to use their name?
Element 2,
Who do I collect charges from when I provide my service?
And the example you use as a small Stanley steamer franchise in many states are considered independent contractors because of those reasons.
X behaves like a franchisee under the guise of independent contracting, that I can agree with. But it is not franchising.

If a Stanley Steemer owner had 5-6 trucks and people working for him, he would never be considered an employee. And since you provide service to fedex, you collect from them.

But the whole issue is that you can buy and sell your business with a lot less restrictions than before. Good luck ever finding an attorney to fight for employee status for yourself. Fedex has nearly perfected the scam, and made you think you were an independent business instead of being controlled more like a franchise.

 

[dmac1]

A fleet of drivers that are limited by DOT hos. Remember?

Hire more drivers, remember????? Are you that slow, or have you been drinking???? More drivers= more HOS. You should know that. Get a clue, buy a vowel, whatever you need to catch up.

Please stop these lame excuses.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Hire more drivers, remember????? Are you that slow, or have you been drinking???? More drivers= more HOS. You should know that. Get a clue, buy a vowel, whatever you need to catch up.

Please stop these lame excuses.

I'm sure you have people knocking down your door to work for minimum wage and no benefits.

 

[dmac1]

You and your attorney are putting way to much weight on the entrepreneurial opportunity element to come to that determination. Here are many more things to weigh, in addition to recent interpretations like the DOL, of economic dependence, short sighted by you and your attorney. little ignorant wouldn't you say?

The whole class action came down to how much entrepreneurial opportunity was available. Even you must admit that having multiple routes, multiple vehicles, and multiple drivers gives you much more opportunity to be a real entrepreneur. You just seem like you don't want ot be a real business, you'd rather whine about what you can't do.

 

[dmac1]

I'm sure you have people knocking down your door to work for minimum wage and no benefits.

Maybe you shouldn't be in business if you can't do it.