The New Capitalists

Did you know that the women employed as seamstresses during the early Victorian era had to pay for the needle and the thread out of their pay packets? They were treated as independent contractors or as risk-taking capitalists. Later on seamstresses had to pay rent for the sewing machines their work required:

The East End seamstress could expect to take home a pitifully low wage. In the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweating System 1888-1890, Miss Beatrice Potter (a most famous female Fabian socialist reformer) and others, gave evidence of the atrocious working conditions and meagre pay. Mrs. Lavinia Casey made shirts at 7 pence a dozen. She normally worked from seven in the morning to eleven pm at night. After deducting time devoted to her children she averaged twelve hours work a day.

In that time she normally made two dozen shirts. Her total daily wage amounted to one shilling and two pence. From her weekly earnings she had to deduct two shilling and sixpence for the hire of her Singer sewing machine plus one shilling, to one shilling and three pence for sewing machine oil and sewing thread. She could barely keep her family on this income. She was in arrears with her payments to the Singer Company, but her livelihood would be threatened if the sewing machine were taken away.

Sad, isn't it? What is perhaps even sadder is that the very same arrangement is going on right now, in the United States:

"I needed a job," said Jean. "They tell you, 'You'll make all this money working for yourself.' "

She soon discovered that her new employer had embraced a controversial strategy to squeeze down costs by millions of dollars each year: it insisted that Jean and the other drivers were independent contractors, not employees. The I.R.S., New York and many other states are investigating this strategy, convinced that many companies use it to cheat their workers and cheat on taxes.

Jean arrived at the Roadway terminal in Brockton, Mass., at 6 each morning and spent the next 90 minutes loading 100 to 140 packages into her truck. She usually left the terminal around 7:30 a.m. and returned after 6 p.m.

Jean had to leave her job for two years when she suffered a severe back injury while lifting a package. Before she could return to work, FedEx Ground, which had acquired Roadway, required her to purchase a truck. The list price was $37,800, with Jean having to make 60 monthly installments of $781.12 and a final, one-time payment of $8,000.

In Jean's view, it was ludicrous for Roadway and FedEx to call the drivers independent contractors.

"We're told what to do, when to do it, how to do it, when to take time off," Jean said. "You have to wear their uniform. You can't wear your hair certain ways. You have to deliver every single thing they put on the truck."

Jean called it "a great deal for FedEx. They don't have to pay for trucks, for the insurance, for fuel, for maintenance, for tires," she said. "We have to pay for all those things. And they don't have to pay our Social Security."

Such a clever arrangement! It saves the employer money, because firms don't have to withhold taxes or FICA payments for independent contractors. Neither is it necessary to provide them with paid sick leave, vacations, health insurance or workers' compensation insurance.

Note also that renaming workers "independent contractors" transfers some of the firm-specific risks to the workers. It is the latter who are now responsible for providing and maintaining the capital equipment they work with, not the firm.

But these workers are not real entrepreneurs. For instance, they don't have the control over their working hours the IRS requires to regard someone an independent contractor. Rather, they are capitalists in the same sense as those nineteenth century seamstresses in Britain were.

Comments (66)

1. Not really sure how you're going to "correct" that, Ms Goodrich?

   Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 10:36am

2. besides "independent subcontractors",

   we also have the job classification of subparttimesemioccasionalonceinawhileclass3dtemporary worker

   who generally work 49.976 hours per week.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2008 @ 11:08am

3. Those practices truly suck, Goodrich. Another trick used concerning the ancillary people,is to bring in temps to do hazardous stuff and really nasty, grunt work for the rank & file who then get their "I'm in with mgt." jolt. Sort of solidarity in reverse.

   Posted by Sorelish at 04/23/2008 @ 11:13am

4. Good thinking,jomamma, without those filthy entitlements, we'd be able to finance a 200 year war on terror.

   Posted by Sorelish at 04/23/2008 @ 11:26am

5. Poor Ms Goodrich. Good thing she didn't live in those baaad old day's she never would have made it.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/23/2008 @ 12:20pm

6. The people who control the risk are financially responsible for the risk. That creates economic insentive for more fiscally responsible behavior.

   not sure you read the article, but it appears that the employee is financially responsible for the truck, the repairs, the gas, the tires......and on top of that FedEx doesn't pay her social security, tells her how to do her job, and has to wear their uniform.

   sounds to me like the employee is the risk taker, not the company.

   later on.........

   FREIHEIT: "uh....hey.....ms.goodrich, uh.....you must be in the inheritance business 'cuz, you know, you just don't understand economics like i do......but no disrespect, you know, 'cuz, uh, i really dig your articles......"

   Posted by darladoon at 04/23/2008 @ 12:27pm

7. Or your own home, education, health care, better life style in general...you now...take care of yourself..a new concept for most here

   and for those who can't take care of themselves? or, what about those who can't afford health care cuz......gasp.....they have a pre-existing condition?

   hey jomamma, have some compassion dude....

   you and marybretbard should go to the gym and pump each other.

   Posted by darladoon at 04/23/2008 @ 12:29pm

8. freiheit, was that an insult or a compliment?

   keep in mind, we're not just talking about any herb, we're talking about darla's herbs. some of the purist, strongest and most tasteful herb anywhere.

   Posted by darladoon at 04/23/2008 @ 12:52pm

9. So FedX decides to increase your route, by say 25% & you as an "independent contractor" get really pissed. Drive your truck home & spray paint ICE CREAM across it. Or maybe carpet cleaning. Just hope there aren't any restrictive covenants on your block. The dentist next door might get really aggravated.

   Posted by Sorelish at 04/23/2008 @ 1:09pm

10. However, when the Government manages all healthcare distribution in the nation someday - as you feel is right and just, you will be tested and denied healthcare because of your expensive risk taking personal behavior.

    As opposed to now, a time when insurers are requiring people to take oaths saying they will not smoke, will exercise etc, or lose their benefits.

    Or now, a time when employers are beginning to fire people that smoke.

    I guess if a corp does it, it is fine, but if a guvt does it, it is evil?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 1:28pm

11. Fed-Ex has a hard row to go here. The laws are fairly strict on this one.

    If Fed-ex is setting a schedule, uniform, dress code, speech code, type of vehicle required, all packages must be delivered with zero driver discretion, route schedules... then they are employees.

    Independent contractors are supposed to be free from most of theses mandated actions/codes.

    Once again, these laws were not put in place in the dark of night by Aliens from Xcrrtyuo, they were arrived at after decades and decades of abuse, at the behest of citizens. Large companies like Fed-Ex have more than an equal amount of chairs at the table when it comes time to write legislation. But, when they don't get what they want, they do their best to find end-arounds using...(gasp!) lawyers.

    If Fed-Ex desires a force of independent contractors, then they will have to meet the established standards for such an entity.

    US Dept of Labor guidelines include, but are not limited to:

    In applying the economic realities test, the most significant factor to be considered is whether the person to whom service is rendered (the employer or principal) has control or the right to control the worker both as to the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed. Additional factors that may be considered depending on the issue involved are:

    Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;

    Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;

    Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;

    The alleged employee's investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;

    Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;

    The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;

    The alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;

    The length of time for which the services are to be performed;

    The degree of permanence of the working relationship;

    The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and

    Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests. Even where there is an absence of control over work details, an employer-employee relationship will be found if (1) the principal retains pervasive control over the operation as a whole, (2) the worker's duties are an integral part of the operation, and (3) the nature of the work makes detailed control unnecessary.

    As the drivers do not control the price of the service, and probably collect little money (what they do collect would be turned over to Fed-ex anyway), I would submit that they are clearly employees, not indie contractors. And, as until recently, Fed-Ex supplied the vehicles to employees, I see it as a blatant attempt to establish the drivers as contractors thereby changing an established condition.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 1:42pm

12. I'm one of those individual liberty, personal responsibility kind of nuts.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/23/2008 @ 1:34pm

    I hear Iraq is a Utopia for that kind of thing. Almost zero guvt interference in the lives of its citizens.

    whereas we here in the US have, over 200 years, established that a balance can be made between mgmt and worker, clean air and profit, safe drinking water and production, etc etc.

    I will also submit to this argument that I think a main reason for Fed-Ex to establish a new relationship with it's drivers is.....

    increased energy costs which can no longer be budgeted accurately.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 1:47pm

13. Being an independent contractor is not for everyone. Just because one may like the idea of being independent doesn't mean they have the discpline to do it.

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 1:48pm

14. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/23/2008 @ 1:34pm

    Fre, what ever happend to just being plain 'ol nuts? ;-)

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 1:50pm

15. Posted by CRABWALK 04/23/2008 @ 1:42pm

    two questions--

    1. Are you a labor lawyer?

    2. If true, why hasn't anybody sued FedEx on those grounds?

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:51pm

16. Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 1:50pm

    Sometimes you feel like a nut....sometimes you don't!

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 1:51pm

17. Q. The person I work for tells me that I am an independent contractor and not an employee. He does not make any payroll deductions or withholdings for taxes, social security, etc., when he pays me, and at the end of the year he provides me with an IRS form 1099 rather than a W-2. By paying me in this manner does it mean I am automatically an independent contractor?

    A. No. The fact that a person who provides services is paid as an independent contractor, that is, without payroll deductions and with income reported by an IRS form 1099 rather than a W-2, is of no significance whatsoever in determining employment status. Your employer cannot change your status from that of an employee to one of an independent contractor by illegally requiring you to assume a burden that the law imposes directly on the employer, that being, withholding payroll taxes and reporting such withholdings to the taxing authorities.

    And my apologies, this is taken from the California Dept of Labor, not the feds, but I see little difference, or at least nothing jumps out.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 1:52pm

18. two questions--

    1. Are you a labor lawyer?

    2. If true, why hasn't anybody sued FedEx on those grounds?

    Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 1:51pm

    1: No

    2: I assume it will come. I know this may be a shock, but suing a company like Fed-Ex takes time and lots and lots of money.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 1:55pm

19. GAH!

    sorry again,

    Mask: 1: No, I am a loon.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 1:57pm

20. For instance:

    I want to build a house...

    If I tell you and a crew what time to be there daily, what time to quit, that they have to wear a uniform with my company name on it, where to buy materials and in which order to build...

    Employee

    If say "Build me a house there with this money and in this time frame, do it any way you want within the building codes"...

    Indie.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 2:04pm

21. Posted by CRABWALK 04/23/2008 @ 1:42pm

    Crabby, nice post btw, but the law is on the side of FedEx. FedEx doesn't step into things lightly and I'm quite sure they had a binding agreement with this woman and she breached it. I can only assume that somewhere in the terms and conditions she was suppose to notify FedEx if she was not able to complete her assigned duties. Something tells me she didn't.

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 2:08pm

22. Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 2:08pm

    I don't know the particulars, but I am sure your usual dissection is accurate. No company can be at fault, it is always the workers fault. Maybe if they locked them up at night to ensure their safety, t'would be best.

    Something tells me she didn't. Like what?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 2:12pm

23. Gotta run, making the daily switch from employee to independent contractor. Catch ya'll later

    And, as always...

    Peace.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 2:13pm

24. Did you REALLY mean to post this....given I'm "the Archivist"!?!?

    heheh

    GAH!

    sorry again,

    Mask: 1: No, I am a loon.

    Posted by CRABWALK 04/23/2008 @ 1:57pm

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2008 @ 2:40pm

25. All of the veteran cab drivers I have spoken to who can remember the era before they were forced into being independent contractors prefered working directly for the company, and I hear nothing but complaints about the system from the newer drivers.

    Time Warner Cable is actually using the fact that their own employees perform repairs while the satellite companies use contractors as a selling point in ads. Of course, that hasn't stopped T-W from using contractors itself!

    I have family members who are part of the computer programming gypsy population of contractors. It's a crappy way to raise a family, and more and more research seems to be showing that it costs state governments more in both the short and long-run than hiring programmers on staff and updating their training periodically.

    I'm not saying that the category of "independent contractor" should be eliminated from labor law, but too many companies are playing awfully fast and loose with the system. Sure, FedEx may be sued (which will take years) or get penalized by a majority-Democratic NLRB (ditto), but better yet would be full-scale unionization. That would put an end to this "independent contractor" delivery driver nonsense right quick, if, IF, the union can organize the place.

    I hate to say it, but a heavilly Democratic Congress is our best hope for labor law reform, whoever the new President is. Unshackle the working class, babies, and let us kick some capitalist ass!

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/23/2008 @ 5:15pm

26. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=cka2nd

    I was a NYC cabby in the late 60s. and you are correct.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/23/2008 @ 5:23pm

27. Great article, J Goodrich!

    Posted by Metteyya at 04/23/2008 @ 6:40pm

28. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/23/2008 @ 5:29pm

    Good Point.

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 6:55pm

29. MBB, I doubt very, very much that Fed-Ex would agree to the use of a truck with FED-EX drawn all over it for pizza deliveries.

    the next question would be; Is fedex passing on the savings to customers and the contractors? What makes me think NOT!?

    Theory? no, history.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 7:02pm

30. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/23/2008 @ 5:12pm

    did the indie have the moving companies name on the truck and uniform? Did they set the route? Are the hours they set for your convenience regular for ALL customers, ie, do the movers have to be at a terminal at the same time everyday?

    Apples and grapes.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 7:04pm

31. More on MBB's attempts;

    If an independent Fed-Ex driver wanted to pick up packages for UPS, would that be allowed? They are indies, after all. Or, is it more likely that written into the contract is the wording that they will ONLY carry for Fed-Ex?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 7:09pm

32. "If an independent Fed-Ex driver wanted to pick up packages for UPS, would that be allowed? They are indies, after all. Or, is it more likely that written into the contract is the wording that they will ONLY carry for Fed-Ex?

    Posted by CRABWALK 04/23/2008 @ 7:09pm

    Well, that would depend on if they included a non compete clause in the contract.

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 8:22pm

33. Well, that would depend on if they included a non compete clause in the contract.

    Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 8:22pm

    I think that is likely, don't you?

    Do you honestly think that Fed-ex would allow their drivers to do double duty for their competitor? Truly?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 8:35pm

34. ACOOK, do you pay for each bedpan you use? Needle? Blanket? Do you purchase your IV's, then pass along that cost to each patient? Did you buy a "franchise" for your floor of the hospital?

    Why not, it seems like good business.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 8:37pm

35. Posted by CRABWALK 04/23/2008 @ 8:37pm

    Crabby, their's no comparison here. What I do deals with life and death. Transporting packings does not.

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 9:13pm

36. Posted by CRABWALK 04/23/2008 @ 8:37pm

    We also assume the risks and take responsibilty when a patient is unable to do so. We have to.

    Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008 @ 9:17pm

37. love this set up. It diffuses risk to the people who actually control it. And insurance is available to help manage risk beyond his control. And the absolute best part is people have to accept more responsibility, but are rewarded for it if they do a good job.

    There is more to this arrangement. Note first that not all the risk that is diffused here is under the control of the driver. So FedEx gets to bear less risk than it would with employees. Is this reduced risk for FedEx reflected in its profit? After all, it is the risk-takers who are supposed to make the profits, according to many conservative thinkers.

    Second, to the extent that nobody covers the health insurance payments of these drivers they will end up in the pool of those that we all are covering, either through having our premia raised or through higher taxes. Yet FedEx is benefiting from this transfer of risk.

    Third, I linked to what the government says about workers vs. independent contractors, and it looks to me that these people are really workers and not independent contractors.

    Finally, this might not be good for FedEx in the long run. Note that the control of the truck maintenance is now decided by someone else. Sure, FedEx can discontinue any driver who fails to deliver or delivers poorly, but it's likely that customer complaints will be higher under this system than under the alternative system of a unified maintenance policy.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/23/2008 @ 10:30pm

38. Crabby, their's no comparison here. What I do deals with life and death. Transporting packings does not.

    Posted by ACOOK 04/23/2008 @ 9:13pm

    a market is a market is a market. Why shouldn't you be a contractor? Many local hospitals are using contract ER physicians already. It could be good for your employers bottom line, and that is all that matters, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 10:44pm

39. Third, I linked to what the government says about workers vs. independent contractors, and it looks to me that these people are really workers and not independent contractors.

    I think you meant "employees" vs IC's, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 11:07pm

40. Well looky here! It's 'Ol Cottin Hill, lookin to kill fitty men!

    Answer; You are wrong as otherwise they WOULD NOT be able to purchase any needed seperate insurance for pys.dmg., lia, health etc. since they follow the same laws as the government!

    non-sequitor.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 11:09pm

41. The former CEO of Fed-ex made $8.7 million a year.

    Not enough to go around?

    why don't we pay the Postmaster General the same rate out of Maaschs commission and Rios tip jar? Do you think they would squeal then?

    WASHINGTON WATCH

    BY BILL MCALLISTER

    Postmaster General John E. "Jack" Potter and seven other senior United States Postal Service officers have been granted large raises, by the Postal Service board of governors.

    The increases were disclosed by the Postal Service Jan. 3 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Linn's.

    The raises were approved May 2007 retroactive to Jan. 5, 2007, under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which removed the top Postal Service officers from the federal pay cap that restricts the pay of most federal workers to that of no more than the vice president of the United States.

    Citing a need to raise the pay of the Postal Service's top officers, Congress voted in December 2006 to give the postal board of governors authority to boost the pay of up to 12 Postal Service officers up to an amount "not to exceed 120 percent of the vice president's total annual compensation." U.S. vice president Dick Cheney is currently paid a salary of $215,700.

    The board authorized increases for eight officers.

    Potter, the 72nd postmaster general, got the biggest increase. His salary jumped nearly 39 percent to $258,840, up from $186,600 in 2007. That's an increase of $72,240 and the maximum pay allowed to Postal Service officers.

    The pay of Patrick Donahoe, deputy postmaster general and chief operating officer, jumped to $235,000 from $186,000, a 26 percent raise.

    The pay of Harold G. Walker, chief financial officer and executive vice president, rose to $215,000, up from $186,000.

    Anthony Vegliante, chief human resources officer and executive vice president, saw his pay rise to $225,000, up from $183,100.

    The pay of Anita Bizzotto, chief marketing officer and executive vice president, rose to $225,000, up from $183,100.

    The pay of Mary Anne Gibbons, general counsel and senior vice president, rose to $215,000, up from $177,800.

    William Galligan, senior vice president for operations, saw his pay rise to $215,000, up from $183,100.

    Robert Otto, chief technology officer and vice president, saw his pay rise to $205,000, up from $177,800. Otto retired Oct. 1 and a successor has not yet been named.

    Potter's pay had been at the same level as that of cabinet officers, a reflection of the days when the postmaster general was a cabinet post. Cabinet members will be paid $191,300 this year, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

    In releasing the salaries, Postal Service officials noted that in 2003 the President's Commission on the Postal Service called for increasing the pay of top officers to a level competitive with private industry.

    The Postal Service also noted that pay of some corporate executives who manage companies with fewer employees than the Postal Service earn far more than Potter will earn. Proctor & Gamble chief executive A.G. Lafley, for example, earns $29 million a year.

    It also noted the pay of the executives of two private delivery firms: Frederick W. Smith, CEO of Federal Express earns $8.67 million and Michael L. Eskew of United Parcel Service earns $3.1 million.

    The Postal Service also compared Potter's pay with that of other postal chiefs.

    Deutsche Post pays Klaus Zumwinkel $4 million. Peter Baker of Netherlands TNT earns $2.94 million, and the United Kingdom's Royal Mail pays Adam Crozier $1.57 million. Australia Post pays CEO Graeme John $1.89 million; New Zealand Post pays CEO John Allen $733,000; Japan Post pays its president Norio Kitamura $246,737; and Canada Post pays CEO Moya Greene $483,876.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 11:23pm

42. By having its own fleet, FedEx had to carry a side-line service business of running vehicle maintenance depots, parts dept., tire racks, etc........probably not what Tom Peter had in mind for firms searching for "Excellence".

    Posted by HAPPY2 04/23/2008 @ 11:22pm

    that's right! To make a company that delivers packages maintain a fleet of delivery vehicles is MADNESS!!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 11:32pm

43. MASK, an answer to one of your questions, buried in a discussion about IC/employee relationships

    In late December 2007, the IRS ruled that FedEx had misclassified its owner-operator delivery drivers as ICs in 2002, and indicated that it anticipates assessing FEdEx $319 million in penalties and interest. FedEx intends to challenge the ruling; meanwhile, the IRS is auditing the company for independent contractor vs employee misclassifications in other years.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 11:37pm

44. One last thing before beddy-bye...

    someone ask HAPPY if he thinks an individual IC gets a better deal at the Freightliner dealer than Fed-Ex gets as an operator of thousands of vehicles.

    Or maybe I misunderstand the concept of buying in bulk, leverage and other funky Econ concepts

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2008 @ 11:43pm

45. NEWSFLASH

    MCDONALD'S TO OUTSOURCE FOODLIKE THING FLIPPING TO PRIVATE CONTRACTORS

    Each Flipper to Buy Own Cow.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 12:54am

46. BTW, you seem to have a real disdain for independent contractors. why don't you like us?

    I like you just fine. I've been an independent contractor myself. What I don't like is calling people who are employees ICs or the whole idea that every worker in a firm could somehow be regarded as a tiny entrepreneur to whom the firm can pass risks (hence the opening story of the post). Most employees don't want to be ICs but firms seem to be trying to force them into that role. ICs assume a lot more risks than ordinary workers.

    It would be quite interesting to do a study to see if they actually end up earning more in net terms than they would as employees. They should earn more because of the risk-carrying.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/24/2008 @ 01:43am

47. If the contractor / employee gets fired or quits, who gets to keep the truck?

    Posted by koroviev at 04/24/2008 @ 03:33am

48. Of course the true entrepreneurs don't stop at one truck but subcontract their business out to other drivers who may indeed be on THEIR payroll.

    Check this out: "Owner Operators and Small Fleet Owners can utilize TruckFLIX`s services to find trucking jobs and Trucking Company Leases offered by top trucking companies that offer some of the best lease programs in the industry!" Or this FedEx Ground advertisement. "FedEx Ground gives you the awesome opportunity to grow your own fleet." Capitalism at its finest comrades!

    In the good old days businesses bought or owned their premises, machinery and equipment but no more. Each enterprise, now sticks to doing its core business and leases, from experts in their provision, those facilitating items. That means that more money is available for what the business does best and Uncle Sam directly foots the bill for all those input costs.

    So FedEx's business is not trucking but getting things from point A to B. That is grandly referred to, around the world, as logistics. Has anyone bought something on eBay from the other side of the world and followed, via the net, its course from exotic place to not so exotic place until it arrives on your doorstep? Well that's observing logistics at work. And that's FedEx's core business rather than owning, servicing, and driving trucks. That, rather than trying to cheat the little people, is why it uses, amongst other means of transport, trucking contractors.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 04/24/2008 @ 09:13am

49. Fed-ex business is moving material, that requires equipment. They make nothing. Their business is shipping, not just tracking.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/24/2008 @ 09:34am

50. If the contractor / employee gets fired or quits, who gets to keep the truck?

    Posted by KOROVIEV 04/24/2008 @ 03:33am

    If it is an employee, Fed-ex would keep the ruck they own

    If a contractor has his contract terminated, he/she would keep the truck. That would be more risk.

    What risk does Fred Smith have to justify his $8,000,000,000 yearly income?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/24/2008 @ 09:36am

51. BTW, JOMAMA, you were writing that "if people knew the taxes that came out of their checks..."

    I have to think that you have not received a wage earner check in some time, probably commission and "un-earned" income, right?

    See, on wage earners paychecks there are these little boxes that say FICA, Fed witholding, State witholding etc. they ell us EXACTLY how much we are paying in tax.

    whereas an IC does not know how much he has to pay, usually that have to make quarterly estimated payments.

    Want to talk to me more about this "real world" you live in?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/24/2008 @ 09:51am

52. Posted by JOMAMMA 04/24/2008 @ 11:08am

    Oh yeah, tax groceries & medicines doubly. We don't want those low income, tax evading minimum wage folk getting off the hook.

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/24/2008 @ 1:08pm

53. Posted by JOMAMMA 04/24/2008 @ 11:08am

    you'd need 50% tax.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 1:15pm

54. Posted by JOMAMMA 04/24/2008 @ 11:08am | ignore this person

    I just love the way you speak for all workers, with your tax whine. you show nothing but contempt for them in every other way.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/24/2008 @ 1:26pm

55. Posted by ACook at 04/23/2008

    Unless you transport organs that is.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/24/2008 @ 8:46pm

56. Posted by JOMAMMA at 04/24/2008

    I am actually an independent contractor. I am getting money back this year. Being an IC makes you not care about taxes because by the end of the year I can make sure I get all my money back. When I worked under a W2 I cared because I could see right there on my paycheck how much was going to the government and everywhere else.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/24/2008 @ 8:59pm

57. bugzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...................

    Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:43:29 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 11:39pm

58. Indep. Contractors, no doubt :~)

    Posted by HAPPY2 at 04/24/2008

    naw, it's mr. maasch's buddies down at the dmv....

    Friday, April 25, 2008 12:32:29 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:28am

59. <b>Things to fix:

    Time stamps needed

    When "submit" is struck we need to come back to this page, not the "blog" or Nation Home page

    Bigger box for entries</b>

    And I want it all for free, or at least let Happy pay for it.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/25/2008 @ 07:33am

60. HTML too.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/25/2008 @ 07:37am

61. this is like "new" coke.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 10:39am

62. This is worse than what we had before - the crappy typeface is less easy t read (please revert) and this tiny box is impossible for comments. Changing things without improving them is not smart. and the preview pane doesn't work.

    Posted by mikecope at 04/25/2008 @ 1:44pm

63. Hmm. Some bugs, I guess, because I supposedly have posted a new piece but it's not here.

    Posted by jgoodrich at 04/25/2008 @ 2:23pm

64. jgoodrich

    <b><i>great googamooga!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 2:25pm

65. <b>testing

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 2:31pm

66. The red carpet of my shoulder.

    Early in the morning, when gloomy canticles rejoice in the sound of the quietness, I hear a scrupulous voice on the sun of a summer, while a sadness delights and discovers a care.

    Francesco Sinibaldi

    Posted by Sinibaldi at 04/26/2008 @ 3:09pm