RSS
STORE
It’s a relatively common strategy for companies to try to bring down their competitors. The Apple vs. Microsoft ads that appear frequently on the front page of The New York Times website. The recent Folgers attack on Starbucks’ instant coffee waged on billboards around Chicago. On the surface, it’s not so strange for FedEx to launch a new marketing campaign against its competitor UPS. But the way they’re doing it is a little suspect.
FedEx’s new campaign, in the form of a website called BrownBailout.com, accuses UPS (brown in color and nickname) of seeking a government bailout. It juxtaposes UPS’ income (over $2.1 trillion) with the definition of bailout (“a rescue from financial distress.”) In fact, according to a recent NY Times article, UPS isn’t seeking anything—it’s actually FedEx who’s trying to get something from the government.
They’re trying to get the Senate to not pass a law that would reclassify FedEx Express under different federal labor laws, making it easier to form unions. They’re arguing that doing this would hamper their own progress and help their competitor, UPS. However, UPS has been held under these labor laws for years, so they’re already unionized. In fact, it’s FedEx that has been getting the “bailout,” as they call it, all along.
Watch for a response from the Teamsters union, whose international VP is quoted in the article as saying, “It’s laughable to think that they would portray this as some bailout. This is simply leveling the playing field.” The director of communications at FedEx maintains that FedEx and UPS are fundamentally different companies and they shouldn’t be regulated the same, also, “that piece of legislation only helps one company while hurting a main competitor—if that’s not a bailout, we’re going to have to redefine the word.”
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Good list, tho a bit US-centric. The world is full of unmitigated PR gaffes; Renault's F1 race fixing; UK PM Gordon Brow...
Comments (5)
I'm sorry, I don't remember the last time I saw a FedEx plane deliver in my neighborhood! They might fly on a plane, but they final delivery is on a truck. Hmmmm, how is that different from UPS?
Posted by Anonymous | June 25, 2009 1:41 PM
Posted on June 25, 2009 13:41
"...UPS isn’t seeking anything—it’s actually FedEx who’s trying to get something from the government...They’re trying to get the Senate to not pass a law that would reclassify FedEx Express under different federal labor laws, making it easier to form unions."
In other words, the whole point of this campaign that UPS is seeking to get a law passed to unionize FedEx is something that UPS is "not seeking." Give me a break. UPS is union and has friends in Washington helping UPS and the Teamsters try to unionize FedEx to make the air carrier less competitive. That's a government bailout for UPS and is pretty accurately characterized by FedEx, whether you like it or not. This talk of "level playing" field means we all have to be dragged down by the feds because some companies can't compete.
FedEx is largely an air freight carrier. Its FedEx Ground goes head to head with UPS, but FedEx Ground has contract drivers not union drivers. UPS should find a better way to compete, not lobby.
Posted by Anonymous | June 23, 2009 12:25 PM
Posted on June 23, 2009 12:25
Several salient points.
1. There are reasons why FedEx and UPS should be governed by different regulations. UPS is 85% ground and FedEx is much less ground oriented. They are by their very nature different in their ground vs. air make-up which is the distinction. Do some research on why the Railway Labor act was created. John Manning's comments are true that both company's have trucks & planes doesn't address why FedEx was put in the RLA in the first place. He is over-simplifying the situation. Motive there?
2. The article states that "UPS isn’t seeking anything—it’s actually FedEx who’s trying to get something from the government" is totally incorrect. It was someone (at the behest of UPS or the teamsters?) who got a 214 word ammendment added to a 10,000 word unrelated bill added that is trying to move FedEx into the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) versus the RLA (Railway Labor Act) which they are under now. This is what FedEx is trying to oppose.
3. UPS's air division is also under the RLA. This is the same act the FedEx is currently under. (Again FedEx is mostly AIR, UPS is NOT.)
4. Putting FedEx under the RLA would be bad for people who need time-definite shipments also.
5. UPS has contributed more money than ANY OTHER COMPANY to politicians over the past 20 years. Put 2 + 2 together and you get UPS + Teamsters trying to put square wheels on FedEx and call it an improvement.
This story doesn't do it's homework and by the use of the unfortunate photo they used demonstrates some prejudice on the part of the author of the article.
Posted by Positiveguy1960 | June 19, 2009 12:37 PM
Posted on June 19, 2009 12:37
This is spin taken to a new level. Their claims are full of distortions and outright lies. FedEx has planes, UPS has planes. FedEx has trucks, UPS has trucks. Same job should be governed by the same law. Why would this put FedEx at a disadvantage if they were on the same level playing field as UPS? UPS has been successful under these labor laws for over 100 years.
Posted by John Manning | June 11, 2009 10:38 AM
Posted on June 11, 2009 10:38
UPS supports the equal application of labor laws to employees who perform the same tasks and job functions at different companies. UPS believes the marketplace, not the unequal application of labor laws, should determine success.
To get the facts, visit http://pressroom.ups.com/landing/0,2111,101,00.html
Posted by Andy Norton | June 11, 2009 9:49 AM
Posted on June 11, 2009 09:49