What's good and how I think it could be improved.

We were talking the other night about what (if anything) he likes about the "job". Right now the bad outweighs the good, but in all fairness, it isn't my intention to just complain about this whole thing. I just want to contribute an honest bit about things that really happens because we found it so hard to find the truth even from the "test run driver".

He says that, if it weren't for all the BS, what he spends his day doing is all that bad. Once he learned most of his route and stopped having to worry about finding EVERY street, things have gotten a little smoother. He gets to observe more goings on around him and deal with people a little more personally.

Delivering can actually be interesting in some ways, his route is varried between city, suburb and rural so there is plenty of variation to the day in terms of driving and the types of things being delivered. I find it interesting that He gets claims in affluent areas mostly that usually turn out bogus in terms of the release program since there are better ways to put packages out of site. With $500K house I guess you need to find ways to rip off FedEx for your order. The doors may be half falling off, the windows partially boarded up, the paint chipping but they get the wine of the month club? I guess you need priorities in life. All in all, if the day isn't overloaded he can almost enjoy the work and being out and about instead of behind a desk. And, on the non-overloaded days he can actually do what they claimed the division was about, provide friendly neighboorhood type service where he can take the time to chat every now and then.

What makes it bad is, they don't get paid for each attempt to deliver things, the overload means they have to rush if they want to get home at night, the terminal expects them to just "appoinment deliver" and "go back" to the customer without extra payment and that everything that is a problem for FHD logistics is automatically the drivers' responsibility.

Considering what I read about people complaining about the service most contractors have the same situation. If FedEx would take a good look at it from a customer service perspective they could improve both their image and the overall job/business satisfaction of the contractors.

It would take some costs to do but I think these are some things that would be good for management to focus on, albeit probably a fantasy :

Really plan volume by having honest reviews with the contractors about the volume they can handle. Consider the contractors input and be just as flexible as they want the contractors to be. Set realistic package thresholds and get a true estimation of the needed number of contractors. To stay competative doesn't just mean package volume, it means excellent customer service and how can they do this under the pressure to performthey are under?

Build a "small" supply of temp/relief drivers. Either get away from the idea of zero fleet/zero paid employees or build a program where the people who want to run multiple trucks can supply the force but make it worth their while. If you have 100 contractors that may want to take 2 weeks off during the year that is 104 weeks worth of work and if there were a true 3-4 relief only trucks then the contractors could breath a little easier. These reliefs should bear the brunt of claims/insurance. Nothing is more aggravating than knowing that the temp that drove for you lost you your monthly "bonus" because they got a valid claim.

Allow some sort of FHD independent contractors group to be formed. When my father was running a delivery truck for the food industry, he was part of a group that made it possible for them to get things like reduced healthcare, disability, credit unions and other services. FHD is so paranoid about teamsters and unions that they miss the point that having and allowing a support group would benefit them overall.

Encourage contractor input in the "roundtables" rather than shooting down everyone's concerns and questions. Stop this concept of "taboo" subjects and "jeopardizing your contract" everytime you voice an opinion.

I have the feeling that there are a lot of contractors that wouldn't want to walk if things could be improved. The overall concept of what the service is supposed to be is appealing however in its current implementation, it really isn't working. I wonder what other people think is good and what they'd like to see made better.

Search Engine Exclusions?

Something funny I've noticed. For a couple of weeks now, I've seen people hitting this page from search engines like Yahoo. Now suddenly, you can't find a single reference to this page on there. Its like someone magically erased it, or, if I was being paranoid that there was some biased exclusion going on. You have to wonder if FedEx has something to do with it and it wouldn't surprise me.

The Class Action Lawsuit (UPDATED 9/29)

An anonymous commentor asked a question here about the "Class Action Lawsuit". I thought I'd post a little about that today because it also may be helpful to some who don't know about it. The site I mentioned in "A link to FedEx information for FedEx Employees" has a copy of the lawsuit in their documents section, but you may have to create a login to access this PDF file. Its a free site and they promise not sell your e-mail or send spam. I haven't gone through the site nearly enought, but its a good site to find information.

About the lawsuit. There were three FedEx Ground contractors in California - Estrada, Morgan and Roberts who filed the suit requesting that the judge find, in their favor, that they are "employees" of FedEx based on the nature of the contract. The judge picked through the "contract", which sounds identical to the Home Delivery contract, and ruled that two of the contractors were indeed employees. This was decided 7/26/04. They will go through another round of findings to determine the accounting but what it means is, FedEx will need to back pay these contractors for various things. It will be interesting to see what they will be responsible for.

The reason that he did not find in favor of the third contractor was that he was running more than one truck and they felt that multiple route contractors are indeed independent. They also excluded contractors that formed LLC's and Corporations, Temp Drivers, workers who are contracted by contractors and line-haul drivers.

I found it very interesting to read the document because the Judge really scrutinized the contract. I would recommend that anyone considering a route read it. I'm not sure where the ruling will go nationwide, but it does open the door for other people to file in their states since the precedent has now been set. The fedexaminer.com site did mention that there was a meeting at the filing attorney's office on Monday, September 20 for FHD contractors who qualify so it looks like they may be moving forward in California.

My boyfriend had formed an LLC, like many other contractors at his terminal and that may have been a mistake. He formed "after" the contract was signed, so he may have a shot. But, it is also something to consider if you are already a contractor who may be thinking of forming a company.

UPDATE
This is straight from the website of the law offices representing the Californian FHD Contractors. There you can find the press release as well as a copy of the ruling. I've contacted them to ask if they know of any other states pending lawsuits, since I would believe that lawers elsewhere would be trying to get information. I'll post whatever response I get here.

On July 26, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Howard Schwab issued his ruling in the liability stage of the class-action lawsuit Estrada v. FedEx. The decision, issued following nine weeks of trial and extensive post-trial briefing, finds that all single route pickup and delivery drivers employed by FedEx Ground in California are employees, contrary to the Company's attempt to designate them as independent contractors. The Court also found that the drivers have not been indemnified for expenses incurred in the course of their work, and the Court therefore ordered the parties to return for phase two of the trial, in order to determine the extent of the company's monetary obligations toward class members. A more complete summary can be found in plaintiffs' press release announcing the decision.

Its Part of The Contract

I can't tell you how sick he is of hearing this lame excuse from management. "Its part of the contract".

Today, again, he has over 160 stops to do and it isn't yet peak season. Its raining cats and dogs and he will come home, late, soaked to the bone, asking for soup and could I just bring it up to him in bed. He can't afford not to rest or to get sick. There is no sick time. The packages will wait there for him to drive with 104 fever if he has to.

Why all the stops? well they are still having a problem getting drivers in to cover the contractors that have bailed or that have been "promoted" -- so they are "flexing" some more. Flexing is taking on a great big new dimension lately, which means ignoring the fact that there are core zones and instead looking at the map and adding many more zones on the fly. When they did the song and dance routine when they were recruiting him, however, the story was, "We will never give you more than you can reasonably handle" and "Expect 90-100 stops per day".

Why can they get away with it? Well, they say that his agreement with them is to do this service for them in a manner that enables THEM to remain competative. If you interpret this as it seems to be intended, it means "We, FHD, reserve the right to tell you what to do even though we acknowledge that we can't tell you what to do." OR "this is what we believe needs to be done so we can maintain our competative edge and you've agreed to help us so we will tell you how you must service us". In essence it is double speak and it isn't open for anyone's interpretation or discussion. FHD wants to call the shots and the CONTRACTORS are NOT PARTNERS in fulfillment. There is not a clause that also states that the routes should also be done so that the contractors maintain a healthy life/work balance and can determine what is reasonable.

It isn't news that the contract is FHD biased, but, its days like this that make it even more clear. SO, whatever FHD says can safely be ignored and replaced with this one thought - THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS (actually it's even 5 steps below a franchise). It is putting yourself in debt to BUY A VERY VERY CRAPPY JOB and that is all there is to it.