Suspended service in Chicago

[It will be fine]

He's YOUR driver. His well being while on the job is on YOU. Now if Fat Freddy is not contractually bound to bear the cost of providing security to your drivers then there's no requirement that he continue to do so. He can quit anytime he wants .

At the same time however the need for protective security personnel on board has now been established because Fat Freddy's actions prove it and in doing so he did you no favors because he's now put you in a position of having no choice but to begin to bear the cost should he decide that he's now longer willing to because the past practice has been long established and it will be the controlling factor not on whether or not you can afford to pay it.

I don’t own any of those areas. The contractors that do won’t service them without security. If those contractors won’t send their people in it’s doubtful anyone else will. You don’t seem to grasp the basic issue.

 

[bacha29]

I don’t own any of those areas. The contractors that do won’t service them without security. If those contractors won’t send their people in it’s doubtful anyone else will. You don’t seem to grasp the basic issue.

But in the end if they will have no choice but to cave in and send them in or it's "hasta lavista, baby" come contract time. Whether it's a good area or a bad area the entity still signed it's name to that contract stating for the record that they will fully service the area good or bad. A contract whose terms are always binding upon the contractor but never upon Fat Freddy.

Once again it's a question of who will bear the cost of those security measures going forward? THAT is the basic issue.
Moreover, the entire objective for the business model is to deliver packages.......not to create profit for contractors .......FXG has never hidden that fact from anyone......Their entire attitude is right in front of people......"We just want our boxes delivered. We don't care if it is or is is not profitable for the guy doing it. And if he can't do it for what we're willing to pay,......we'll just move on to the next guy who thinks he can".

 

[It will be fine]

But in the end if they will have no choice but to cave in and send them in or it's "hasta lavista, baby" come contract time. Whether it's a good area or a bad area the entity still signed it's name to that contract stating for the record that they will fully service the area good or bad. A contract whose terms are always binding upon the contractor but never upon Fat Freddy.

Once again it's a question of who will bear the cost of those security measures going forward? THAT is the basic issue.
Moreover, the entire objective for the business model is to deliver packages.......not to create profit for contractors .......FXG has never hidden that fact from anyone......Their entire attitude is right in front of people......"We just want our boxes delivered. We don't care if it is or is is not profitable for the guy doing it. And if he can't do it for what we're willing to pay,......we'll just move on to the next guy who thinks he can".

The cost is covered by FedEx. Your imaginary scenario doesn’t change that.

 

[bacha29]

The cost is covered by FedEx. Your imaginary scenario doesn’t change that.

Imaginary huh? We'll see how imaginary it becomes when not if but when FXG decides that it will no longer pay for providing security for drivers who are not their employees simply because they don't HAVE to pay.

They're actions have clearly proven that the threat exists and paying for the measures to counter that threat is a simple courtesy not a contractual obligation.........And there's nothing imaginary about that.

 

[It will be fine]

Imaginary huh? We'll see how imaginary it becomes when not if but when FXG decides that it will no longer pay for providing security for drivers who are not their employees simply because they don't HAVE to pay.

They're actions have clearly proven that the threat exists and paying for the measures to counter that threat is a simple courtesy not a contractual obligation.........And there's nothing imaginary about that.

It’s been tried. The trucks don’t roll. Security is there the next day. Your histrionics don’t change reality.

 

[bacha29]

It’s been tried. The trucks don’t roll. Security is there the next day. Your histrionics don’t change reality.

You're still sidestepping the matter. If the number of routes needing security personnel continues to rise and the costs rise accordingly how long do you think it will be until there's a cutoff point? Whatever the case one thing is for certain, if there comes a time when a choice has to be made regarding who gets company funded security assistance and who doesn't rest assured X company employees will be protected first.

 

[It will be fine]

You're still sidestepping the matter. If the number of routes needing security personnel continues to rise and the costs rise accordingly how long do you think it will be until there's a cutoff point? Whatever the case one thing is for certain, if there comes a time when a choice has to be made regarding who gets company funded security assistance and who doesn't rest assured X company employees will be protected first.

I’m not sidestepping anything. I’m telling you what is happening. You are inventing scenarios and crying about the outcomes of your imagined scenarios.

 

[bacha29]

I’m not sidestepping anything. I’m telling you what is happening. You are inventing scenarios and crying about the outcomes of your imagined scenarios.

Right now you're sliding by counting on Fat Freddy to pick up the tab for extra muscle and that's fine. But, if all hell breaks loose not only in your sector but spreads in a general state of civil unrest into multiple sections of the country there will most definitely come a point in time when the money gets cut off .

 

[Fred's Myth]

Redirect Notice

That's bacha when he takes a stand on a subject.

 

[AB831]

Redirect Notice

That's bacha when he takes a stand on a subject.

I’ve banged heads with him before, but I’ve found him to be spot on when it comes to his understanding of what this company is about. However, he doesn’t do himself many favors by the length of his posts. Brevity, my friend.

 

[Cactus]

It’s been tried. The trucks don’t roll. Security is there the next day.

Until "budgetary concerns" easily override that. Then you're SOL.

 

[Working4the1%]

Us Express guys just have to go into high crime areas all by ourselves..no police escort..HEROS work here...my high crime area strategy is always go way early as most residents don't wake up until Noon.Its like a ghost town

 

[59 Dano]

Outside of dogs box mules do not generally get attacked by people at my station aside from having guns pulled on them from time to time. The problem was mechanical inaccessibility to the location and these were single often one box one time only stops and it didn't happen often if you had a vehicle with off road capability.
Now in the case of entire sections of a city that contractor will sooner or later be pressured by management to return to it even if it's not completely safe........BTW. There are no Walgreens in my forest and DG's are 40 miles apart.

Well, bacha, once you get out of the jing weeds and into civilization, things are done differently.

 

[59 Dano]

No, and the company fails with my refusal.

My fault, or the company's fault?

Neither, and anyone who sees that as a failure of any kind is an idiot.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Neither, and anyone who sees that as a failure of any kind is an idiot.

When service is all you sell, and your service is to take a shippers package and deliver it, then the nonfulfillment of the service you contracted to supply isn't a failure? Is there a third option to success/failure that isn't considered a form of failure as well?

 

[59 Dano]

When service is all you sell, and your service is to take a shippers package and deliver it, then the nonfulfillment of the service you contracted to supply isn't a failure? Is there a third option to success/failure that isn't considered a form of failure as well?

And on Brown Cafe, some want to argue that not risking a violent death to deliver a package is failure.

 

[Fred's Myth]

And on Brown Cafe, some want to argue that not risking a violent death to deliver a package is failure.

It’s a justifiable failure, but still a failure, nonetheless.

 

[Boywondr]

We (UPS) had pkgs stuck in the CACH hub for four days the week before last and the reason for delay said CIVIL UNREST.