FedEx wins one in court
04-06-2009, 11:12 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Haven't you ever bought beer wholesale?
Just like the Bud Truck driver works for a local distrubutor who has an agreement with (the former) Anheiser-Busch. The Fedex Ground Driver works for a "franchisee" who has an agreement with Fedex Ground to provide a service over a specific territory.
04-06-2009, 11:35 AM
#33
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
If "FedEx Ground drivers" do not work for FedEx Ground, then who do the "FedEx Ground drivers" work for? A "franchisee?" OK then, who does the "franchisee" work for? And how does FedEx Ground perform a service, if in fact they don't employ somebody to perform that service?
This seems to be a case of semantics run amok. When you connect the dots, it's pretty clear who's working for who, and where the money flows. Fred Smith's prior statements on the matter make it clear why it's set up in the manner that it is. Were this a criminal matter, it would be an open-and-shut case. John Gotti went to prison for life on less direct evidence.
I'm not picking on FedEx, I'm sure it's still a fine company to work for. But the notion that these "IC's" are somehow disembodied, free-spirits operating "independently" of the parent corporation is simply absurd.
The "Bud Truck driver" at our Circle-K works for Budweiser. I don't know (or care) what it says on his paycheck, but it says "Budweiser" on his shirt, his hat, his truck, on the products and advertising specialties he brings in his Budweiser truck, and on his invoices, and that's good enough for me. On days when he makes his deliveries in a dress and high heels and calls himself "Edna", he's still a "he" and still a Bud Truck driver as far as I'm concerned. Just a confused one.
This seems to be a case of semantics run amok. When you connect the dots, it's pretty clear who's working for who, and where the money flows. Fred Smith's prior statements on the matter make it clear why it's set up in the manner that it is. Were this a criminal matter, it would be an open-and-shut case. John Gotti went to prison for life on less direct evidence.
I'm not picking on FedEx, I'm sure it's still a fine company to work for. But the notion that these "IC's" are somehow disembodied, free-spirits operating "independently" of the parent corporation is simply absurd.
The "Bud Truck driver" at our Circle-K works for Budweiser. I don't know (or care) what it says on his paycheck, but it says "Budweiser" on his shirt, his hat, his truck, on the products and advertising specialties he brings in his Budweiser truck, and on his invoices, and that's good enough for me. On days when he makes his deliveries in a dress and high heels and calls himself "Edna", he's still a "he" and still a Bud Truck driver as far as I'm concerned. Just a confused one.
PIPE
04-06-2009, 11:38 AM
#34
Administrator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
In law school, right around the time we were learning that "ownership" is different than "possession," we also first heard the concept of "for the purpose of."
For the purpose of Fred making the most money, he had to hire "independent contractors." These were/are hundreds of people he didn't have to put on his payroll, didn't have to pay medical benefits, didn't have to pay unemployment taxes, and a whole host of other niggly things. If one of these ICs was unhappy about something, Fred didn't care and he didn't even have to care. All he knew is that the work was being done and he paid as little as he could for it. Just as there are people today willing to fly a CRJ for $20,000 a year, there will always be someone willing to put up with the dog poop to make what I heard was something like $70,000 a year and he gets to wear purple shorts.
This lawsuit that FedEx won in King County Superior Court is being appealed for the reasons that Rebecca Roe indicated in the article. Ms. Roe is a very good attorney and I, for one, will never underestimate her.
So, it's not about semantics, it's about money. And lots of it. The pilot group should be thankful it has a union that more or less serves to protect wages and work rules.
And that's my worthless half yuan.
For the purpose of Fred making the most money, he had to hire "independent contractors." These were/are hundreds of people he didn't have to put on his payroll, didn't have to pay medical benefits, didn't have to pay unemployment taxes, and a whole host of other niggly things. If one of these ICs was unhappy about something, Fred didn't care and he didn't even have to care. All he knew is that the work was being done and he paid as little as he could for it. Just as there are people today willing to fly a CRJ for $20,000 a year, there will always be someone willing to put up with the dog poop to make what I heard was something like $70,000 a year and he gets to wear purple shorts.
This lawsuit that FedEx won in King County Superior Court is being appealed for the reasons that Rebecca Roe indicated in the article. Ms. Roe is a very good attorney and I, for one, will never underestimate her.
So, it's not about semantics, it's about money. And lots of it. The pilot group should be thankful it has a union that more or less serves to protect wages and work rules.
And that's my worthless half yuan.
04-06-2009, 12:30 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
In law school, right around the time we were learning that "ownership" is different than "possession," we also first heard the concept of "for the purpose of."
For the purpose of Fred making the most money, he had to hire "independent contractors." These were/are hundreds of people he didn't have to put on his payroll, didn't have to pay medical benefits, didn't have to pay unemployment taxes, and a whole host of other niggly things. If one of these ICs was unhappy about something, Fred didn't care and he didn't even have to care. All he knew is that the work was being done and he paid as little as he could for it. Just as there are people today willing to fly a CRJ for $20,000 a year, there will always be someone willing to put up with the dog poop to make what I heard was something like $70,000 a year and he gets to wear purple shorts.
This lawsuit that FedEx won in King County Superior Court is being appealed for the reasons that Rebecca Roe indicated in the article. Ms. Roe is a very good attorney and I, for one, will never underestimate her.
So, it's not about semantics, it's about money. And lots of it. The pilot group should be thankful it has a union that more or less serves to protect wages and work rules.
And that's my worthless half yuan.
For the purpose of Fred making the most money, he had to hire "independent contractors." These were/are hundreds of people he didn't have to put on his payroll, didn't have to pay medical benefits, didn't have to pay unemployment taxes, and a whole host of other niggly things. If one of these ICs was unhappy about something, Fred didn't care and he didn't even have to care. All he knew is that the work was being done and he paid as little as he could for it. Just as there are people today willing to fly a CRJ for $20,000 a year, there will always be someone willing to put up with the dog poop to make what I heard was something like $70,000 a year and he gets to wear purple shorts.
This lawsuit that FedEx won in King County Superior Court is being appealed for the reasons that Rebecca Roe indicated in the article. Ms. Roe is a very good attorney and I, for one, will never underestimate her.
So, it's not about semantics, it's about money. And lots of it. The pilot group should be thankful it has a union that more or less serves to protect wages and work rules.
And that's my worthless half yuan.
04-06-2009, 12:55 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
How soon we forget
For the record, the quote from my last post was from "Martin J Levitt, Confessions of a Union Buster".
How about a legal fact that strikes closer to home. From our case with the NMB that illustrates clearly a history of interference.
Federal Express, 20 NMB No.4 (1992): Here, the Board again addressed
and refined its approach to the issue of employee committees. Following an election loss, ALPA alleged that FedEx had established a scope committee in an attempt to pre-empt ALPA’s futurenegotiating role, and that as a result of this and other coercive conduct, the election results did not
truly reflect employee desires. In response, FedEx argued that it had established employee committees before, and that the establishment of a committee during the election was necessary because FedEx’s merger with Flying Tiger raised issues the scope committee needed to address in a timely manner.
The Board accepted FedEx’s representations that the carrier had not formed the scope committee for bargaining purposes. It also noted the carrier’s history of using pilot committees to deal with work-related problems.
At the same time, however, the Board wrote that its members
were disturbed by the timing of the formation of the committee, in the middle of an election period. As the merger with Flying Tiger [which the committee
was supposedly formed to address] had occurred two years previously, the
Board questions whether it was necessary to establish the committee at that
particular point in time.
Accordingly, the Board held that FedEx’s formation of the scope committee, coupled with its misrepresentations of the size of union dues and its frequent mailings containing an anti-union message, created a level of carrier communications that “overwhelmed” employee free choice. It
therefore ordered a rerun election, in which the FedEx flight deck crew members voted to bargain collectively through ALPA.
How about a legal fact that strikes closer to home. From our case with the NMB that illustrates clearly a history of interference.
Federal Express, 20 NMB No.4 (1992): Here, the Board again addressed
and refined its approach to the issue of employee committees. Following an election loss, ALPA alleged that FedEx had established a scope committee in an attempt to pre-empt ALPA’s futurenegotiating role, and that as a result of this and other coercive conduct, the election results did not
truly reflect employee desires. In response, FedEx argued that it had established employee committees before, and that the establishment of a committee during the election was necessary because FedEx’s merger with Flying Tiger raised issues the scope committee needed to address in a timely manner.
The Board accepted FedEx’s representations that the carrier had not formed the scope committee for bargaining purposes. It also noted the carrier’s history of using pilot committees to deal with work-related problems.
At the same time, however, the Board wrote that its members
were disturbed by the timing of the formation of the committee, in the middle of an election period. As the merger with Flying Tiger [which the committee
was supposedly formed to address] had occurred two years previously, the
Board questions whether it was necessary to establish the committee at that
particular point in time.
Accordingly, the Board held that FedEx’s formation of the scope committee, coupled with its misrepresentations of the size of union dues and its frequent mailings containing an anti-union message, created a level of carrier communications that “overwhelmed” employee free choice. It
therefore ordered a rerun election, in which the FedEx flight deck crew members voted to bargain collectively through ALPA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
