Here's a thought. Simplify the tax code and regulations so that *it doesn't matter*. So many problems just go away if you remove tax and regulatory reasons to prefer one form of relationship over another.

All levels of government utilize contractors for all types of work. In total, I suspect they have a great deal more contractors than employees. Why should a company not be able to do so as well.

As to the employees that are named in the various suits, they knew what they were doing when they signed on. This is labor union/NLRB actions IMHO.

To start with Fedex should not have to answer to the government on how it decides to deliver its cargo. The NLRB is anti- business and is making the US less competitive every year that passes. If they are so awful and will not pay a decent wage they will lose business. Laws and regulations only serve to hurt the worker in the long run.

IRS Section 87-41 and Dept of Labor policies establish a default employer/employee relationship. The issue in the mindset of this forum is that government should not regulate the ability to provide a work product, whether it is a physical product, a modification (piecework), or a service, as Fedex has established the drivers.

The problem is that for me to purchase a service or product, _I_ am the person who dictates what work product I want, otherwise why would I purchase it? The gray area could apply to a painter, who after working on a restoration project for my home could be classified as my employee if the painter does not have other projects.

The IRS regs establish that this simple attribute (Work specification) is enough to establish an employment relationship. Between the IRS and legislation pushing toward employment slavery, and the Dept of Labor who has made piecework illegal in support of Labor Unions and socialist agendas, the objectivism position of free markets to sell as much and at any rates I can negotiate is hindered by legislation, "Job Creation" and Employer policies.

The Issue is that FedEx purchased a service of secure package transport. I surmise the driver has the freedom to set their breaks, lunch, path to drive, speed, etc. which is essential to the definition of Fedex making a purchase of work product from a contractor.

If ONLY, the government would allow independent contractors to flourish, the entire expectation of Job Creation would evaporate quickly.

By IRS rules, there are very few sub contractors. If a business owner sets hours, provides supplies, sets prices. sets service standards, assigns tasks between clients or jobs, or many other little details...Those workers are deemed "Statutory Employees"; meaning by statute their legal description is employee.

In reality a sub contractor is someone you bid a job to, don't care when he starts, how much his fees are, don't care how he gets it done, just do it the best way you can with your own tools.

Control seems to be the element IRS is focused on. A few years ago a friend of mine in the salon business had all "sub contractors" working for him. Read that again, that last sentence is an oxymoron. When several of the contractors could not pay their taxes, IRS bill the owner for $115,000 in taxes, fines, and fees. They ruled "the owner, is responsible for all debts, liens, and taxes incurred by the business!.

This is the kind of ruling when government force is applied to everyday situations.

In my opinion, flat tax, fair tax, anything is better than the system we now have. This system is used to modify Socio-economic behavior rather than pay for the cost of government.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. The income tax and its "refinements" is still BS.

United States Contract Law.
1) No force was used when the drivers SIGNED voluntary contracts to drive "exclusively" for FedEx.
2) Both parties agreed to the terms.
3) Doing this will impact ALL contracts for all industries and put hundreds of thousands of independent contractors out of work.

4)) Government needs to STAY OUT OF THIS!!!.

Dave42 has it in a nutshell, but it's interesting that so many on this website keep missing the key point
that all of this results from government interference where it has no valid reason for doing so. Any of them actually read Atlas Shrugged?

unnecessi

All this can be found under the Federal Labor Standards Act. This all depends on how the parties interacted. If the employee/contractors were given specific access/guidance to the definitions of their legal position by Fed-Ex prior to the "changeover", Fed-Ex looks to be in the "right". I use this same technique in my business relations to legally avoid taxation. My best guess.....both sides of the "table" are equally culpable. Corporate Wolves and Sheeple.

We have deviated so far from "wrong and right", its silly. This is all about government power and money. The government does what we let it get away with.

Delivery of packages is the essential service provided by this company. Utterly disgusting ethics demonstrated by FedEx. Nevertheless, the workers agreed to the contract, so $5Au would reluctantly have to side with management if he were judging this case. $5Au's advice to drivers if they lose this case. Drive real slow and dare management to fire all of you.

It's all in the contract, sign a bad one shame on you, sign a good one, Yea! free happy dance.
40 to 60 percent is the average cost of expenses for an Owner-Operator or a Contract-Operator, but a good accountant, specialized in the Transportation Industry (Mine was thru OOID) can save 20 to 25 percent of those by recovery from taxes. The real problem is keeping up with the paperwork, and not trusting a contracting company, who doesn't care about you, to do it.

I think it's a distinction without a difference. Technically, contractors are supposed to set their own hours somewhat, bring some of their own tools, advertise in some way for other clients, etc. I worked on a project once as a W-2 (employee) in which I billed weekly, charged the same rate I charge 1099 clients, etc, but they wanted me as a W-2 for some legal reasons. My wife serves on some gov't boards that pay her a trifling W-2 income, which is bizarre b/c doesn't see it as different from a paid speaking engagement. I've done 1099 projects where I represent myself as an employee. To me it doesn't matter. I think the IRS should drop the distinction and handle all employees and contractors the same way.

A contractor is just that. An entity with a contract. The rules of the contract must be obeyed by both parties. If either party doesn't like the term of the contract they may refuse to participate or change the contract. Just calling a person a contractor doesn't make it so, but calling oneself an employee doesn't make it true either. If both sides are rational, where is the problem? I guess the key is rationality, which seems to be the problem in most conflicts in every area of human endeavor.

So this means my son could not sue FedEx for its driver dropping a $1,000+ car mechanic tool box off at a crook's house. This was tracked by my son on the phone ten or so years ago.
The crook made the said box go poof while his father next door said, "Tool box? There was never any tool box."
I guess one of the the beauties of using a contractor is that if he expensively messes up, only he can be sued.