House Provision Could Cost FedEx Millions, Stall Deliveries

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I am having a hard time reading www.unsews.com in SWaMonkey 7.3, just figured I would let ouy know!

seo lace of AL 8:15PM May 01, 2010

boyerand adjusts chronic nava sales lalfkk foodie alpa shareholders hilary andb

Buy Cialis of AL 12:43PM April 16, 2010

Suppose that Wells Fargo, the nation’s fourth largest financial services company by assets, claimed that it should be regulated not as a financial institution, but as a stagecoach service -- because that is how it was originally founded.
Wells Fargo, of course, would never make such a claim. But as ridiculous as such an assertion is, it is essentially the argument that FedEx Express uses regarding its delivery service -- and one it has gotten away with for years.
The FedEx argument goes like this: it is an airline because it was initially founded as an airline thirty-six years ago, denying that fundamental aspects of its business have changed over the years. Carrying its argument one step further, it then asserts that its FedEx Express delivery truck drivers are, in fact, airline employees engaging in airline activities and that 85% of its packages are delivered by air! Maybe they should be called “truck pilots.” Perhaps one has even landed his truck in your driveway. The truth is that 100% of all FedEx packages are delivered by truck
Companies engaged in the same industry and performing the same service should be subject to the same law. A truck driver is a truck driver. Not even a federal loophole can make them aviators.

Tim of IL 6:48PM January 31, 2010

Suppose that Wells Fargo, the nation’s fourth largest financial services company by assets, claimed that it should be regulated not as a financial institution, but as a stagecoach service -- because that is how it was originally founded.
Wells Fargo, of course, would never make such a claim. But as ridiculous as such an assertion is, it is essentially the argument that FedEx Express uses regarding its delivery service -- and one it has gotten away with for years.
The FedEx argument goes like this: it is an airline because it was initially founded as an airline thirty-six years ago, denying that fundamental aspects of its business have changed over the years. Carrying its argument one step further, it then asserts that its FedEx Express delivery truck drivers are, in fact, airline employees engaging in airline activities and that 85% of its packages are delivered by air! Maybe they should be called “truck pilots.” Perhaps one has even landed his truck in your driveway. The truth is that 100% of all FedEx packages are delivered by truck
Companies engaged in the same industry and performing the same service should be subject to the same law. A truck driver is a truck driver. Not even a federal loophole can make them aviators.

Tim of IL 6:47PM January 31, 2010

Suppose that Wells Fargo, the nation’s fourth largest financial services company by assets, claimed that it should be regulated not as a financial institution, but as a stagecoach service -- because that is how it was originally founded.
Wells Fargo, of course, would never make such a claim. But as ridiculous as such an assertion is, it is essentially the argument that FedEx Express uses regarding its delivery service -- and one it has gotten away with for years.
The FedEx argument goes like this: it is an airline because it was initially founded as an airline thirty-six years ago, denying that fundamental aspects of its business have changed over the years. Carrying its argument one step further, it then asserts that its FedEx Express delivery truck drivers are, in fact, airline employees engaging in airline activities and that 85% of its packages are delivered by air! Maybe they should be called “truck pilots.” Perhaps one has even landed his truck in your driveway. The truth is that 100% of all FedEx packages are delivered by truck
Companies engaged in the same industry and performing the same service should be subject to the same law. A truck driver is a truck driver. Not even a federal loophole can make them aviators.

Tim of IL 6:47PM January 31, 2010

First, to the most recent poster - UPS does not have "just as many, if not more aircraft than FedEx". Get your facts straight or the rest of your post is meaningless. FedEx is the 2nd largest airline in the world (formally first until the NWA/Delta merger). With UPS making billions more than FedEx, they can't be taken seriously when they say that they "want a level playing field". UPS and the Teamsters do not join forces to help each other, but only for their own selfish reasons. They are pooling their resources for their own agendas. UPS doesn't want to compete with FedEx, they want to bury them. A "level playing field" would require FedEx to be unionized nationally, like UPS. This bill would cause FedEx to unionize locally and cause massive disruptions (playing right in to UPS's hands). FedEx would constantly be negotiating with "locals" across the country. Customers, afraid that their packages would become "stuck" in the system if a specific area went on strike, would be afraid to tender those packages to FedEx.... Win-UPS! The Teamsters, who's leaders become rich while brainwashing their followers in to believing that they actually care about them, are licking their chops at the prospect of tens of thousands more dues paying members. Remember, unions are socialist organizations that want nothing more than to tear down the 200 years of capitalism that has made this country great. UPS and FedEx should both be governed under a new TLA (Transportation Labor Act) that would protect the country from any disruption in the transportation of goods and services.

Scott of NY 9:44PM September 17, 2009

If people think that FedEx should remain under the RLA then I suggest making the same rules apply to UPS. UPS has just as many, if not more aircraft than FedEx. What ever rules they fall under I think it should be the same for both companys.

MIke of SD 12:00PM July 22, 2009

After reading all the comments posted it appears that most of the people that disagree with Fed Ex's position are Fed Ex employees.So if their employees dont buy the propaganda that Fed Ex is putting out about UPS then why should anyone else even listen. Its apparent that Fed Ex is taking from employees and spending the money to black mail congress.

Randy of VA 3:36PM July 08, 2009

I've been following this thread and many others about this issue for a while. So MANY posters bring up the issue, "If FedEx Express isn't afraid of unions, then why are they fighting this? Just let the employees vote." Anything UPS and the Teamsters want THIS badly cannot possibly be good for FedEx. So, FedEx should allow itself to be railroaded (ha ha) into a Congressional rule change without fighting back? Three parties have dogs in this hunt.
1) The Teamsters goal is two-fold: a) more dues-paying members and b) better bargaining clout for a UPS contract.
2) UPS goal is to win more business from FedEx. Even the threat of service disruptions or the fear of increased costs will drive customers to seek the newly relative "stability" of UPS.
3) FedEx Express goal is to continue with the same business model they've had since day one inception. (FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight are NOT impacted by this possible legislation. They are already NLRA companies and are not unionized, by the employees' choice).
Now, regarding "just let the employees vote." Employees can do that today -- albeit on a national level. Many folks don't think the majority of FedEx Express employees want to be Teamsters. Even the Teamsters don't think so or they would have tried a national campaign. The point of the RLA campaign by UPS and the Teamsters is DISRUPTION. There will inevitably be some stations here and there that will vote in a union. However, all that will do is set off rounds and rounds and rounds of litigation. Express has almost 600 stations around the country. They CANNOT possibly certify a single station as a bargaining unit, thus possibly triggering 600 different contracts. No major corpration could function with "micro-contracts." Not even UPS does that. UPS has some large, regional Teamster contracts, then some "local" contracts -- such as the entire Chicago metro area (not a station or two within Chicago...)
So, FedEx will then, of course, fight in court to determine the appropriate bargaining unit size -- it will have to. It simply cannot be the single-station level. In the meantime, UPS and the Teamsters will continue a media campaign trying to paint FedEx as anti-union and the Teamsters will begin their organizaing efforts in earnest. They will want to trigger as many "bargaining unit lawsuits" as possible in as many districts as possible (for maximum distruption -- throwing maximum business to UPS) -- all while conducting "home visits" to employees' homes pressuring them to sign cards.
That is why FedEx is fighting to maintain their appropriate legal status. Eventually having a union (at an appropriate bargaining unit site) is not the nightmare scenario. Never was. It's the prolonged, nasty, ugly, massively disruptive process along the way.

teed-off of LA 2:35PM June 22, 2009

You have to take an hour for lunch but if the freight is late then half an hour is OK by Management? Duh! The freight business is a variable business if you have not figured that out. There are so many factors like weather, traffic, etc that can impact it. You need to work on an assembly line or something so the "buzzer" can dictate your day. You're in the wrong discipline. My buddy works for FedEx in Canada and they are union free and loving it! I for one will be trying to get into a company like FedEx when I'm done school. They constantly rank "up there" in the Best Places to work category!............ You need to find another job. Go to UPS if you think they are "it".

Jordon of NY 10:31AM June 16, 2009