AB831
Well-Known Member
With the amount of ownership that Fat Freddy has of your ass, you might as well be an employee. Hell, his actual employees have more freedom from him than you do. At least they can quit.
Stupid arguments about the Ground business model
- Thread starter It will be fine
- Start date
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
I need to give a 30 day notice to walk mid contract. I’ve seen a few choose not to renew after a year. I don’t think you appreciate the impact of contractor turnover on FedEx Ground’s service.
Hookers and drug dealers are businessmen too. But unlike IWBF they can sell to whoever they want and name their price. IWBF? Not so much.
zeev
Well-Known Member
Question when contractors pay for a route is that for a customer base or a geographic area? Is it a 1 year contract ? Did the old RPS do this ? I assume FedEx has the authority and pays the insurance and these contractors lease on with X.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Doesn’t change the fact that you’re factually incorrect about Itsy.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
When you purchase from another contractor you are buying the rights to a geographic area. You only have a one year contract. RPS did the same but in those days contractors gave area away when new contractors came on. Not many people saw the value in areas until the lawsuits forced owners to have multiple routes. FedEx is the motor carrier that contractors lease under.
And there are plenty of states where having only one so-called 'customer' who sets the rules for how you operate makes you an employee, not a business owner, even if you have to hire help.
In Oregon, for one exam[le, those people you hire could be found to be fedex employees. Fedex had to drop a case in front of the state's Supreme Court in order to prevent setting a precedent because they had no way to argue. Several contractor drivers were found to be fedex employees by lower courts, with fedex liable for unemployments taxes, worker's comp, etc.
That is when fedex started requiring proof that the contract owner was actually paying the state taxes and prohibiting payment to drivers as subcontractors.
I still find it crazy that fedex can hire contractors to deliver packages, but they DEMAND that anyone they contract with to hire employees.
That requirement to hire drivers as employees is one of the conditions that takes away autonomy from contractors and makes it just as likely that the 'contractor' would be found to actually be employees of fedex if fedex was their only 'client' but because fedex ensures that all employment taxes are paid, they are covered for that liability.
Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, etc can all hire 'contractors' to do their deliveries, but a fedex 'contractor can't?????? That makes sense.
Liability and the simplicity of unionizing if fedex ground hired employees are THE only reasons to set up fake contractors
And now he owns the forum as part of HIS business because he 'created' it!!!!!!
That is wrong. All you are buying is the right to continue the contract until it expires IF fedex doesn't decide to cancel it You have ZERO rights to a geographical area when fedex reserves the right to change it due to operational needs. Buying a right to finish out a contract that actually gives you no concrete rights is nuts if the price is more than the amount of profit you can earn before the contract reaches the expiration date.
And contractors don't lease vehicles under fedex authority. They operate under fedex authoroty, which is different. If fedex was the owner of the vehicle, you might be able to lease from them, but you seem to have it backwards. The fact is that if you also lease the vehicle from fedex, you are LESS likely to really be an independent business. The leasing company will come after you- not fedex. You should REALLY know that.
The IRS ONLY cares about collecting taxes owed. If taxes are paid, they don't care. If you try to complain about your status, you will get a form letter saying that the IRS declines to rule in the matter as they did with me and other contractors who challenged the lack of freedom a business deserves. Because all my taxes were paid- by me- they declined to rule, and the cost of trying to recover taxes fedex should have been paying was less than what I would have recovered in court.. And again, fedex makes sure you pay your taxes so they never face the issue
Under many state laws, servicing only one customer makes it more likely that you are an employee, so that is a terrible argument if you are trying to prove you are an independent business. If anything you are a DEpendent of fedex.
He wanted a place for his stupid arguments, so this fits.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
You might want to look up what lease means in this scenario. The entire operating agreement is the lease agreement to operate under Grounds authority. It’s called leasing on to a motor carrier and is a very standard practice in transportation. It’s so standard there are DOT regulations governing them.
Being a business or an employee is defined by laws, not feeling. The courts decided over and over that fedex 'contractors were EMPLOYEES even if they hired others to help them. Fedex made sure to cover their butts by limiting their liability so it is harder for a contractor to get to court, so the courts haven't yet ruled on the current contract, but overall conditions are the same, except that fedex now ensures their liabilty it limited by stricter requirements, including audits of all contractor operating records.
oldrps
Well-Known Member
What law defines what a business is?
Spot on. Demanding access to a privately held corporation's operating records for the purpose of audit and evaluation as is the case of Fedex demanding that of it's ground contractors and for no other reason than to protect it's interests is something I'm sure will eventually be challenged. Who ever heard of such a thing? You don't hire a contractor to replace your roof conditional upon granting your demand to see his company's records.
Moreover if any information gleaned from that audit is not to THEIR so called "STANDARDS" it's "hasta la vista baby" even if those records and practices are otherwise in full compliance with GAAP and the law in general. In doing so they are taking the law into their own hands. Clear testament as to how shaky and unstable the legal grounds the model sits on actually is. Just think. If the IRS and or law enforcement wanted to do what Fat Freddy demands of Ground contractors they would have to get a court order and a warrant.
If IWBF wants to proclaim what he has is a "business" it will be for no other reasons that to pet his ego and to give him a completely undeserved sense of self importance. But they are about as credible as Trump's claim of having won the election.
Employment law determines whether you are really a business or just an employee forced to take on added liabilities fedex is requiring. You should know that if you are involved in fedex ground. Fedex lost national and state cases across the country, and made some superficial changes requiring the contractor to risk more loss if they tried to argue.
The agreement is leasing YOUR vehicle to fedex, not the other way around as you implied. And it is not a standard lease. It contains much more than just a standard lease. And for you to focus your entire rebuttal on one word shows how little you have. Under the law, if you can be considered an employee- it means that you do NOT have a business.
I have a business where I go in daily, punch a time clock, and agree to let the company that pays me write checks to the IRS, etc on my behalf. But what I do is my business, so even if I clock in, and make a guaranteed minimum for doing that, I am a business owner, not an employee. I FEEL like it is a business.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
My rebuttal is demonstrating your clear lack of understanding of the terms in the discussion.
