5 ms·
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but the article seems to slant in favor of FedEx using contractors. And then you look at the pros and cons. FedEx Ground Cons:
by katastic 9y ago
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but the article seems to slant in favor of FedEx using contractors. And then you look at the pros and cons.
FedEx Ground Cons:
- No benefits, no overtime pay, no sick time, no insurance
- Drivers pay for vehicle, gas, supplies, insurance, and everything else
- No company retirement, seemingly less stable environment
- No Teamsters contract or collective bargaining
- Drivers have only one client: FedEx
That's one step above glorified pizza delivery driver for a career. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. My wife has extended family, on the other hand, that have worked 40+ years at UPS and retired with benefits. Now, I'm not saying, "UPS rules, and FedEx sucks." But I'm hesitant to throw my support behind any business model that treats people like temporary commodities instead of long-term resources.
- clumsysmurf 9y agoThis reminds me of a story posted here not long ago "To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider the Janitors at Two Top Companies, Then and Now" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-rising-inequality-consider-the-janitors-at-two-top-companies-then-and-now.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/upshot/to-understand-risi... HN Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15161445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15161445
- SamReidHughes 9y agoSorry, did they use a janitor at Kodak as the example? The job market in Rochester was an anomaly in that time period.
- godzillabrennus 9y agoI fully support upward mobility but it's a tough argument to make that it was culturally good for an organization to promote people in part because of seniority. Kodak is dead. In no small part because they lost their ability innovate.
- Clubber 9y agoKodak innovated just too late. They wanted to milk the profits from their film market as long as they could. That certainly wasn't a worker's decision.
- VintageCool 9y agoKodak innovated too early, too. They had the first digital cameras. They were producing digital cameras through the 1990s and the 2000s. Their problem was that they were fundamentally a chemicals company. They weren't as good as consumer electronics as the Japanese consumer electronics companies, and they weren't as good at the web as Silicon Valley web companies. And, ultimately, they wanted to milk the chemical film business as long as they could and perpetually overestimated the popularity of film cameras versus digital. That reminds me of a passage from Robert Caro's Master of the Senate: "Vote-counting" -- predicting legislators' votes in advance -- is one of the most vital of the political arts, but it is an art that few can master, for it is peculiarly subject to the distortions of sentiment and romantic preconceptions. A person psychologically for intellectually convinced of the arguments on one side of a controversial issue feels that arguments so convincing to him must be equally convincing to others. And therefore, as Harry McPherson puts it, "Most people tend to be much more optimistic in their counts than the situation deserves... True believers were always inclined to attribute more votes to their side than actually existed."
- kalleboo 9y agoKodak was a chemicals company that thought it was a camera/photo company. Fujifilm embraced being a chemical company and diversified into medical, cosmetics, materials etc and survive to this day.
- NaOH 9y agoThe best piece I've read on that distinction was in The Economist. Along with clarifying what happened with those companies in that industry, I've carried with me to this day the lesson therein from Kodak—since its investment in digital photography paid off well in the short term—of how decisions can immediately look wise but ultimately be fatal. http://www.economist.com/node/21542796 http://www.economist.com/node/21542796
- sjg007 9y agoFedEx => Uber => FedUbX Delivery
- Fomite 9y agoFuber.
- warent 9y agoFubex Delivery
- technobabble 9y agoFUBAR Delivery. If it's not f*cked it's free!
- matthjensen 9y agoI imagine FedEx thinks of the drivers as partners rather than "temporary commodities". It's a franchise model or close enough. McDonald's calls their analogues, "owner/operators." That's no slur.
- takeda 9y agoThis also doesn't include customer satisfaction. I personally had more enjoyable experience with UPS than FedEx. It seems to be always on schedule and delivered as promised. FedEx is not terrible, but has some variation.
- cmrx64 9y agoFor years and years, packages shipped via FedEx would arrive at the house I grew up in beat to hell. Rarely to the point of damaging the goods inside, but not exactly confidence inspiring.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cnst 9y agoThis is a naive comparison when taken out-of-context. Frankly, I don't really understand how you could be an independent contractor working 5 days a week on a single route contract for FedEx -- when would you have time to service your truck or how would unpaid sick days or vacation work -- but the retirement accounts are all commodities now, especially with the internet -- in fact, my CU offers better HSA than my former employer.
- Consultant32452 9y agoCan you explain why you look down on pizza delivery drivers so much? Why would a person delivering random crap you bought off Amazon deserve retirement benefits but a person delivering your dinner does not?
- katastic 9y agoYou really should look into your projection. I'm arguing for MORE benefits for workers, not less, but you couldn't see it because of your pre-built biases before you ever read my comment. You're looking for a moral battle to the point you're attacking allies.