Oregonian Looks into FedEx Ground
The Oregonian ran two stories that looked into two aspects of the FedEx Ground model.
One article covered the Oregon member case of the multi-district litigation. The recent Estrada ruling was noted, as was the straight talk from FedEx on how it still hasn't decided if it will appeal again in California.
The second article focused on the possible relocation of a FXG hub, the question of incentives for such commercial investment and the secondary impact on the environment and job-creation by the proposed move. In the end, unfortunately for Oregon taxpayers, it looks like the pols are more scared of accusations of 'losing new jobs' than of measuring the complete cost of these things.
-- August 30
Bloomberg: FedEx, UPS Increase Donations to Democrats
Bloomberg ran an analysis of corporate Political Action Committee giving by some of the largest PACs in the nation. The Bloomberg headline writer chose to highlight both FedEx and UPS in the headline. But the reporter clearly had FedEx in his sights:
FedEx Corp., United Parcel Service Inc. and General Dynamics Corp. are among companies shifting campaign contributions to Democrats after years of favoring Republicans, federal records show.
FedEx's political action committee contributed 58 percent of its money to Democrats in the first half of the year as it lobbies against a bill making it easier for the company's truck drivers to unionize, according to the Federal Election Commission. In the 2006 election, two-thirds of FedEx's PAC donations went to Republicans in their unsuccessful bid to keep congressional control.
<snip>
Memphis-based FedEx said the donations aren't tied to fighting the pro-union legislation. FedEx, the second-largest U.S. package-shipping company, opposes a bill to let its truck drivers join local unions rather than having to organize nationally. The House Transportation Committee in June attached the provision to legislation renewing airline taxes and fees.
The measure would put FedEx truck drivers under the same labor law as those working for its larger competitor, UPS, which employs 246,000 Teamsters.
FedEx spokeswoman Kristin Krause said the donations are unrelated to the legislation. ``We've always been very bipartisan in our PAC contributions and look for candidates on both sides of the aisle that understand our issues,'' she said.
So FedEx gave 66 percent of its contributions to Republicans when the GOP was in charge and then in 2007 gave 58 of its political action money to Dems when they're on top. By comparison, the article details how the breakdown of UPS contributions to Democrats went from 32 percent in 2006 to 40 percent so far in 2007.
-- August 22
FDX Legal Woes Highlighted in Memphis Sunday Paper
The hometown Memphis newspaper ran an extensive piece on FedEx Ground's misclassification problem in its Sunday edition Business Section.
The observations of the University of Memphis professor interviewed for the piece are worth noting:
"My guess is that the independent contract structure gives FedEx a 15- to 20-percent advantage on total compensation costs on benefits alone," said labor economist David Ciscel, professor emeritus at the University of Memphis.
"But there could be all sorts of advantages we're not seeing."
<snip>
"If FedEx won, they would win every suit, but if they lose, they lose big-time, too," Ciscel said. "Without knowing for sure, I've always thought the whole relationship was to thwart unionized drivers and not so much about cost considerations."
That's what the Teamsters have thought all along too.
The article also quotes the company's podperson:
"We know that defending the independent contractors is the right thing to do," said Maury Lane, FedEx spokesman. "This is the kind of service our customers have asked for."
Is that more straight talk? "The customers made us do it. The customers made us do it." That might not fly when the bill comes due in California or elsewhere for the company's policy of misclassifying tens of thousands of drivers.
All in all, a solid article that got its facts right and makes FedEx look pretty bad. It must not have made for good breakfast reading for all the FDX corporate types in Memphis.
-- August 20
Straight Talk, or Slow Walk off a Cliff?
There is lots to learn over at FedExaminer.
One driver posted FedEx Ground management's response to the latest smackdown in the Estrada case .
"Notice to Independent Contractors: Ruling on Estrada Litigation
On Monday, August 13, an appeals court in California ruled that a limited number of single-work area contractors in the state- most of whom have not contracted with FedEx Ground since 2001 - should be reimbursed as employees for some of their operating expenses. We obviously disagree with the decision and are evaluating our legal options.
What does the ruling mean for you?
*The Court ruling directly affects only a small percentage of contractors in California, many of whom are no longer with the company.
*We believe the court's decision will have absolutely no effect on our ability to continue providing the world-class service our cutomers have come to expect.
*We are commited to giving you straight talk about these and other issues and will continue to keep you updated as developments occur."
Just like John McCain's straight talk - not based in reality and stuck in 2000.
The reporters covering FDX don't seem to get the importance of this appellate decision. Bloomberg is on top of it. The Pittsbugh paper had an itsy-bitsy mention of it.
But the detail that matters to the drivers most goes unmentioned. Of course, the judges ruled that the drivers are ducks...no, the drivers are employees. But more importantly, the range of expenses that the company owed them will increase their awards.
From the plaintiffs' lawyers statement:
The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision finding FedEx Ground drivers to be employees and not independent contractors, thus denying the appeal of FedEx in the landmark Estrada vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. The appeals court also determined that the FedEx Ground drivers were entitled to reimbursement for approximately $6 million in additional expenses bringing the total damages to about $11 million for 200 drivers.
There is a big difference between straight talk and cold cash.
-- August 16
Express Western Region Lawsuit $55 Million Settlement Approved
Bloomberg (is every other news service in the world asleep?) covers the Judge's approval of the settlement in the Satchell case.
In an order signed yesterday and posted on the court's Web site today, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco approved the settlement covering 20,000 checker-sorters, customer service agents, freight handlers and other workers. Derrick Satchell and eight other employees sued the unit in 2003, claiming they were denied promotions and raises equal to those given white colleagues.
FedEx dropped its requirement for candidates for courier jobs to pass a map-reading, listening, reading and sorting skills test after the suit was filed, said spokeswoman Sally Davenport. Under the agreement, FedEx will change its promotion practices and will be monitored by a court-appointed special master.
<snip>
The company denied all allegations of discrimination.
Under the proposed settlement, named class representatives will receive as much as $30,000 each and 18 other people will get $5,000 each for the time they spent giving affidavits and depositions to lawyers on both sides.
Although the money may be just a drop in the ocean, the court "special master" now inserted in FedEx management shows that this case will have a long-standing impact on how FedEx operates.
-- August 16
New Resources: 2 Pennsylvania UC Board Rulings
There have been rumors of letters from the Pennsylvania authorities to FedEx Ground and Home Delivery drivers in that state.
Something must be afoot in Penn. Two recent Unemployment Compensation Board decisions that reversed previous rulings of ineligibility are another indication of stirrings in PA. One case involved a claim from 2006 which took 6 months to reverse. The second case was a claim from 2007 that took only 3 months to reverse.
Both Board decisions came to the same conclusion: FedEx had control over the driver, the driver didn't operate an independent business and the driver was an employee.
-- August 14
Attack the Messenger
More signs of desperation.
Instead of rebutting the decision of the Massachusetts Department of Workforce Development. Instead of rebutting the decision of National Labor Relations Board Region 1. Instead of rebutting the sworn testimony before Congress.
The company podperson attacks the messenger, Bob Williams.
FedEx Ground spokesman Perry Colosimo said the company wasn't surprised by Williams' testimony.
"FedEx gave Mr. Williams not one, but two, chances to succeed: once as a management employee at FedEx Express, and a second chance as a contractor at FedEx Ground," Colosimo said. "His performance was unacceptable in both cases."
Normally, there is no reason to repeat such a classless comment. But since Bob has been kicking the company's butt with regularity, the quote is noted here so we can all keep score. Bob will have the last laugh.
-- August 13
Baltimore TV Investigates FedEx Ground
A Baltimore television station ran an "I Team" investigation into FedEx Ground in Maryland on Aug 7. Overall, a very solid story.
The FedEx Ground podperson wouldn't even face the reporter. The company is apparently unwilling to take questions. Imagine what Mike Wallace would do with them.
As for the pro-co guy who was in the video, since he grosses $7,000 a month operating four vehicles with 3 employees it begs the question of how much he takes home after expenses. And he runs from door to door all while never missing a day even when injured and sick and nets next to nothing while supplying FedEx with a fleet of four vehicles at no cost. That's the best face the company can put forward?
-- August 09
Bloomberg Re-examines FXG Misclassification Issue
Bloomberg filed an update on the FedEx Ground driver misclassification issue. The reporters seemed to have talked to a lot of people to get views from a number of perspectives. But the reporters got bamboozled. Since the news is the first draft of history, mistakes should be noted and untruths need to be refuted.
First, the mistake.
The reporters write about the multi-district litigation against FedEx this way, "The lawsuit is one of several disputes involving the Memphis, Tennessee-based company and the Teamsters union." The fact is that neither the International Brotherhood of Teamsters nor any affiliated union is a party to the multi-district litigation. That lawsuit is a dispute involving the Memphis-based company and the drivers who are now plaintiffs. It is certainly true that there are disputes between FedEx and the Teamsters. But the lawsuit is not one of them.
Second, the untruth. And this is where the company spin has seeped into the reporting.
The article had multiple re-writes. So one has to watch the language carefully.
In the original article (4:00 am) and Update 1 (12:00 pm), the article stated:
The lawsuit is of one of several disputes between the Memphis, Tennessee-based company and the Teamsters union. The union on July 24 sent a former FedEx contract driver to a U.S. Congress committee to testify about working conditions.
FedEx, which has 280,000 employees, gave the court in Indiana e-mails between union officials and lawyers to show the unions are driving the lawsuits.
But in Update 2 (3:00 pm) and Update 3 (5:00 pm), that segment of the article had changed:
The lawsuit is one of several disputes involving the Memphis, Tennessee-based company and the Teamsters union. On July 24, a former FedEx contract driver selected by the union went to a U.S. Congress committee to testify about working conditions.
FedEx, which has 280,000 employees, provided the court in Indiana with e-mails gathered during the discovery process, or the pre-trial exchange of evidence. The messages between Teamsters officials and lawyers show the unions are driving the lawsuits, the company claimed.
This is where the company's conspiracy theory interrupts the facts. "Emails" between "union officials" and "lawyers" "show" the "unions are driving the lawsuits." Only in the later version is the last phrase - "the company claimed" - added.
Just like the company argued its conspiracy theory before the NLRB in Hartford, the company spin doctors float it to the reporters. In the legal hearing, the judge saw through the spin by getting all the facts and called bs on the company. In the Bloomberg article, the company's "claims" are repeated without refutation.
The judge said it better so it bears repeating: "The uncontradicted testimony establishes that the Union did not initiate or pay any part of the legal fees or any incidental expenses of the lawsuits against the Employer, either directly or indirectly." Empasis intentional. A couple of disjointed emails and some spin won't change the facts.
-- August 08
New Document: NLRB Admin Law Judge Decision in Hartford
Following the election victory by Home Delivery drivers in Windsor, CT who chose to join Teamster Local Union 671, the company unsurprisingly raised objections to the election procedures. Since the company tried the exact same delay tactic in the Wilmington election (and failed), it follows they'd try again. And it looks likely they will fail again.
A hearing into the company's objections was held by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge on July 2 and July 3 in Hartford. The two objections addressed in that hearing were ruled upon by the NLRB ALJ on August 2.
FedEx's Objection 1 in its entirety is:
During the critical period before the representation election on May 11, 2007, Teamster Local Union 671, affiliated with IBT, by and through its agents and others with whom it acted in concert improperly conferred valuable benefits, including legal services, to eligible voters and caused two civil actions on their behalf to commence in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut. The civil actions identify six (6) voters as named plaintiffs. The Union's conduct constitutes, among other things, an impermissable benefit with laboratory conditions necessary to conduct a free and fair election.
So, the company claims that since HD drivers in Windsor were p.o.'d enough to file lawsuits at around the same time they were p.o.'d enough to want to elect Local 671 as bargaining representative, then....then what is not clear. Somehow a series of legal activities by these drivers, the Teamsters and independent lawyers were "impermissable."
After two days of multiple witness testifying to what happened in Windsor, the ALJ came to his decision based on the facts and not on company conspiracy theories. The ALJ wrote:
The uncontradicted testimony establishs that the Union did not initiate or pay any part of the legal fees or any incidental expenses of the lawsuits against the Employer, either directly or indirectly, or confer any valuable benefit upon the unit employees as alleged in the objection...The only 'support' provided by the Union relating to the lawsuits involves the maintenance of two websites that provide information relating to the Employer, its attempts to classify contract drivers as independent contractors and the resulting lawsuits...As a union is entitled to notify employees of their rights, I find nothing objectionable about the maintenance of, or publicity about, either of these websites.
And Objection 1 was kicked to the curb. Objection 2 was a technical issue about the status of two single vehicle contractors. That got kicked to the curb also. The full ALJ decision is now among the documents at the Resource page about the Windsor HD facility.
The strained legal arguments by FedEx and its legal team - in front of the NLRB, in front of the MDL judge, in front of the CA Court of Appeals and elsewhere - sure stink of desperation.
There is a saying among lawyers: "When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; when you have the law on your side, pound the law; when you don't have the facts or the law, pound the table." Or in FedEx's (weak) case, offer conspiracy theories.
-- August 08
Discrimination at FedEx Express Alleged in NJ Lawsuit
The Morris County (NJ) Daily Record reported on a recently filed lawsuit by a former FedEx Express worker who claims discrimination based on his development of Parkinson's Disease.
The lawsuit alleges harrassment and discrimination and documents a series of actions by managers:
There are some interesting comments from readers of the story too. Every defendent is innocent until proven otherwise - or in some cases until there is a settlement and non-disclosure agreement in place.The suit claimed that a complaint against Nesbit and Altivilla filed by Terrazza with FedEx personnel supervisors was assigned to Nesbit for investigation, even though Nesbit had been named in the complaint.
The suit claimed that the series of job shifts were done in retaliation for the complaint against Nesbit and Altivilla.
By April 2005, Terrazza was suffering from Parkinson's, depression and a lack of sleep and was placed on disability until August 2005, the suit said.
On his first day back at work, Terrazza was fired for falsification of company records, the suit said.
-- August 07
