Bloomberg Re-examines FXG Misclassification Issue - August 08, 2007

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.