“UPS and the Teamsters are working to push a job-killing ‘Brown Bailout’ provision in a very important piece of legislation that would modernize our national air travel system,” the anonymous authors of the Brown Bailout website wrote. “Yet 230 words inserted by UPS would only harm its main competitor, FedEx Express, and have the opposite effect of creating jobs – it threatens them – at FedEx, at its suppliers and at its customers.”

First of all, the “provision” in question does nothing more than place FedEx Express delivery drivers under the same labor law – the National Labor Relations Act – as every other delivery driver in the nation. This is not a “job-killing” provision; it’s a field-leveling provision.

Consider the following from a recent report by former Sen. Malcolm Wallop’s Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled FedEx vs. UPS: A Conservative’s Take on Equality Under the Law:

“FedEx and UPS both compete to provide consumers with a wide-variety of shipping services. They both have large fleets of aircraft and pilots and crews to operate them. They both have huge fleets of trucks and a vast army of truck drivers to deliver their packages to homes and businesses across the globe. But although FedEx and UPS are competing in the exact same business, they are governed under a separate and unequal set of labor regulations.”

And that’s what this is really all about. It’s an “equal justice under law” issue, not a twisted definition of “bailout” for political purposes provision.

So how did we get to this point in the first place? Again, from Frontiers of Freedom:

“UPS was founded more than 100 years ago and at a time no airplanes were even available to ship packages. It was originally a trucking company. So when labor regulations were passed in Congress in the early 20th century, UPS was regulated under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In contrast, FedEx was founded in the 1970s and because it used airplanes from its inception, its pilots and airline workers was regulated under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) which regulates airline and railway workers.”

The problem, however, is that FedEx has been pretending that its truck drivers are airline workers. “There are 2,581,540 truck drivers in the U.S. and 2,520,540 are covered under the NLRA,” notes FoF,” while only about 60,000 FedEx drivers are not.”

Or, as FoF continues, look at it this way:

“Delta/Northwest and FedEx both have very large fleets of planes, but Delta/Northwest has 107 more planes than Fedex. Yet FedEx has almost double the number of airline employees as Delta/Northwest – and FedEx is moving cargo, not people. . . . FedEx manages to claim double the number of airline employees as an actual airline that has 107 more planes than FedEx. How is that possible?”

I’ll tell you how. Because FedEx is “gaming the system” by being allowed to categorize its delivery drivers as airline workers, that’s how.

But so what? What’s the harm, right?

Well, the harm is that this disparity provides FedEx with a potent marketing advantage which it has used over the years to great effect by telling customers it’s the more reliable express delivery company to do business with because its truck drivers are non-union while UPS’s truck drivers belong to the Teamsters.

And to be perfectly honest, many conservatives and Republicans have initially sided with FedEx simply because fixing this inequity in the law *might* benefit organized labor, which hasn’t exactly been friendly with the GOP on most issues.

But once conservatives get beyond the understandable initial knee-jerk anti-union reaction, they’ll see that this isn’t really about unionization at all. It’s about one American company vs. another American company – both of which have American stockholders and employ American workers to provide the exact same service to American citizens and businesses.

Only….

American law currently gives one of those American companies the unfair business equivalent of hitting from the ladies tees when it comes to marketing their services.

From the FoF report:

“The FedEx pitch goes something like this – with FedEx you don’t have to worry about a strike. But with UPS if there is a strike, your packages will not ship and we won’t have capacity to help you at that point. But if you sign up now with FedEx, you’ll have no worries.

“This, of course, is belied by reality and years of real life experience. The truth is this is little more than a scare tactic. But it has been an effective and important part of FedEx’s sales pitch – an approach they deny using, but one that has been used over and over nonetheless.”

Indeed, FedEx’s entire lobbying campaign against the FAA provision which would put their 60,000 truck drivers under the same federal labor law as the rest of the nation’s 2.5 million truck drivers is based on scaring Republican members of Congress into thinking this issue is about the big, bad unions rather than righting a legislative wrong.

That’s why FedEx’s lobbying campaign makes claims that the FAA provision will “harm” FedEx and “threaten” jobs. Their entire fear campaign is intended to make people think that if FedEx’s drivers are placed under the same federal labor law as UPS’s drivers, FedEx’s drivers will immediately “go union” and FedEx will go out of business.

What a crock. Or as the FoF report explains:

“Three out of four FedEx corporate divisions have been covered by the NLRA for many years and not a single worker has joined a union. Simply stated, FedEx’s Freight, Ground and Services employees are regulated under the NLRA and they are not unionized. So there is no reason to believe if the Express division truck drivers were also regulated under the NLRA that they would unionize either. The only union employees that FedEx has are its pilots who are unionized under the RLA. So the unionization argument is a ruse and a sham.”

That’s right.

Aside from its airline operation, FedEx has over 100,000 other employees currently covered under the NLRA and none of them are unionized. And as long as FedEx takes good care of its truck drivers there’s no reason whatsoever to believe their truck drivers will “go union.”

But even if they did, would that put FedEx out of business as FedEx insinuates would happen?

Of course not.

UPS truck drivers belong to the Teamsters….and yet UPS continues to provide the same express delivery service as FedEx for similar prices. However, think for a minute exactly what FedEx is saying here.

They’re claiming that if Congress changes the law and places their truck drivers under the same labor law as UPS’s truck drivers, they couldn’t successfully compete on such a level field in the open market with UPS.

Which is, in reality, admitting that the FAA provision isn’t a “bailout” for UPS, but an end to a corporate welfare subsidy for FedEx.

In other words, FedEx is arguing that it’s “too big to fail” and, therefore, Congress needs to continue providing FedEx with the advantages this inequity in the law provides in order for them to stay in business.

Um, so which company is asking for a bailout again?

“When Congress returns to Washington this week, UPS lobbyists will be back to their old games, lobbying Congress for an unfair, anti-competitive bailout that could threaten the nation’s overnight delivery network and cripple entire sectors of our economy. If UPS succeeds in getting the ‘Brown Bailout’ passed, consumer shipping costs could rise and service and reliability could suffer. Put simply, this could hurt businesses and individuals across the country.”

Now here’s how the release SHOULD have been written:

“When Congress returns to Washington this week, FedEx lobbyists will be back to their old games, lobbying Congress to keep an unfair, anti-competitive corporate welfare subsidy that creates an uneven playing field in the overnight delivery market and uses federal labor law to give FedEx an undeserved and unfair marketing advantage. If FedEx succeeds in retaining this corporate welfare subsidy, the uniquely and quintessentially American concept of equal justice under the law will continue to suffer. Put simply, this would hurt the free market for all businesses and individuals across the country.”

There, that’s better. And accurate and truthful, to boot.

Then the chamber is blind….or bought off.

But the really interesting thing here is that the chamber, despite siding with FedEx, accepts UPS’ main argument that there IS an inequity in current federal labor law which benefits FedEx:

“Although UPS argues that regulating FedEx under the NLRA will help ‘level the playing field,’ the Chamber is not convinced that is the best solution for the industry,” the chamber writes. “The seemingly more competitive and flexible solution would be for UPS to be regulated under the RLA.”

NLRA stands or National Labor Relations Act – the labor law that every package delivery driver in the United States is covered under….except those working for FedEx Express.

RLA stands for Railway Labor Act, the federal labor law that treats FedEx Express’ package delivery drivers as though they were airline pilots.

Only in government could this possibly make sense.

In any event, the chamber in its statement DOES acknowledge that there is an unleveled playing field but believes the proposed law placing FedEx’s drivers under the same law as every other driver is not “the best solution.”

Follow the logic here: According the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, the best solution to fixing an inequity in federal labor law is to treat all UPS drivers as if they were airline pilots rather than treat FedEx Express’s drivers like….well, drivers.

Yeah. Makes perfect sense.

If you’re Alice in Wonderland.

“The U.S. Senate has voted to extend funding authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) until March 31, 2010. The extension legislation does not contain the anti-competitive UPS bailout provision that was written into the original House bill.”

1.) This wasn’t exactly earth-shattering news. The Senate has been kicking this can down the road for some time now, hell-bent as it is on destroying the nation’s health care system before tackling any of the nation’s other priorities.

In fact, today’s extension was just an extension of an earlier extension.

2.) It’s not a “UPS Bailout Provision.” It’s a provision to remove an anti-competitive corporate welfare subsidy for FedEx. The provision would simply place FedEx Express’s express delivery drivers under the same labor law as every other express delivery driver in the country.

FedEx’s BS continued:

“UPS is lobbying heavily for the inclusion of a special interest provision that would benefit only one company, UPS, by fundamentally changing the labor law governing its main competitor, FedEx Express. The bailout provision, if passed, could impact the price, access and reliability of our overnight delivery system.”

In reality, the news release could have/should have read:

“FedEx is lobbying against the inclusion of a provision that would eliminate a special interest benefit enjoyed by only one company, FedEX, by equitably changing the labor law to place FedEx’s drivers under the same law as the drivers of its main competitor, UPS. The corporate welfare subsidy removal provision, if passed, would level the playing field for all overnight delivery providers.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: When you have to misrepresent the facts and resort to misleading propaganda to argue your point, you probably have a very weak case. In other words: see FedEx.

“The Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, one of New Mexico’s leading business organizations, yesterday came out in support of FedEx’s efforts to preserve its labor regulation and opposed UPS’ attempt to receive a legislative bailout,” FedEx ghost-wrote in the new “Brown Bailout” email. “The Chamber agrees that Congress should leave what is working well alone as FedEx Express continues to promote ‘cost-effective and quality service.’”

Couple of problems here:

1.) FedEx provided no proof in the email that the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce had taken their side on this issue. There is no copy of a letter or statement or so much as a direct quote from someone representing the Chamber. FedEx expects us to just take their word for it.

Sorry, Charlie. Considering all the sneaky, underhanded tactics FedEx has already deployed in their disingenuous campaign over the last several months, we aren’t prepared to read their lips on anything like this. Maybe the Chamber did somehow indicate their support on this issue on Thursday, but without proof, we ain’t buying it.

2.) As has been said ad nauseum, the proposed law change would simply put FedEx and UPS express delivery drivers under the same law. To suggest that this amounts to the same kind of government bailout extended to banks and auto dealers is absurd. Actually, since it’s intention, let’s call it what it really is….a lie.

3.) Of course things are “working well” under the existing system….for FedEx. The inequity in the law gives FedEx a government-imposed competitive advantage they wouldn’t otherwise enjoy in the free marketplace without this corporate welfare assistance.

4.) FedEx does, indeed, provide “cost effective and quality service.” The part they gloss over, however, is that their competitor, UPS, also provides cost effective and quality service. The difference is that UPS, unlike FedEx, provides such cost effective quality service while its employees are covered under the same labor law as almost every other employee in the country today. The mere fact that FedEx provides cost effective and quality service is no excuse for treating its workforce differently from every other company’s workforce.

FedEx’s latest “sky-is-falling” missive also included this:

“Any disruption to the national delivery system could wreak havoc on the national and local economies…”

Poppycock.

The proposed change in the law wouldn’t affect FedEx’s “national delivery system,” nor would it necessarily result in any kind “disruption” whatsoever, let alone a national one. That’s a boogey man FedEx keeps hauling out of the closet to scare those who only look at the surface of this issue.

FedEx’s “national delivery system” consists of moving its packages by air from city to city. The proposed law change wouldn’t touch that aspect of their operation at all.

In reality, the law change would affect only the local drivers who pick up and deliver packages to and from the local airport. So the only way the law change could possibly be even remotely construed as potentially affecting FedEx’s “national delivery system” would be if FedEx was landing a plane outside of your home or office to deliver your package.

And that just ain’t how it’s done.

What FedEx isn’t telling everyone is that the law change would allow FedEx drivers to join a union in individual cities/municipalities rather than forcing its entire workforce to join a union nationally. And what FedEx is trying to claim is that IF this law is passed, and IF a local union goes on strike, then such a strike will bring the nation’s ENTIRE express delivery service to its knees.

Oh, puh-lease.

1.) Just because the law would allow FedEx Express drivers in individual cities to unionize doesn’t mean any would. Indeed, none of the employees of FedEx Express’s other divisions belong to a union.

2.) Even if some FedEx Express drivers unionized, that doesn’t mean there’d ever be a strike. By continuing to take good care of its employees, FedEx Express would still be able to keep the Big Bad Union wolf outside the door.

3.) And even if there was a strike, it doesn’t exactly take a degree in nuclear physics to drive a package from the airport to your home or business. Replacing pilots who go out on strike would be problematic, which is why they are covered under a different labor law. But replacing local van and truck drivers? Come on. Anyone with a driver’s license could do that. Even me!

4.) Fortunately, IF FedEx Express drivers unionized, and IF they ever went out on strike, and IF FedEx Express couldn’t find me to deliver its packages, we would still have UPS and others who can and would pick up the slack to make sure the “national delivery system” wasn’t shut down. Hurray for private sector competition!

FedEx’s success in gaining support from business groups such as (possibly) the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce is due almost entirely to scaring the bejeepers out of them with this doomsday scenario which is very unlikely to ever happen – in addition to capitalizing on an understandable inherent hostility on the part of businesses to organized labor.

But that’s no reason to treat the employees of two different companies doing the same job differently under the law. FedEx is wrong to be capitalizing on this inequity in the law, and doubly wrong for using deceptive tactics and misleading arguments in their fight no matter how many groups or individuals they fool into believing them.

(Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach)

“Imagine two competing pizza delivery companies that are identical in every way except their delivery methods. Pizza Company A delivers its pizza by car and Pizza Company B delivers its pizza by bike. Now imagine that the government has completely different labor laws for pizza parlors with cars and pizza parlors with bicycles. The result is much larger labor costs for Company B than Company A. Is that fair?”

Well, of course not. Yet that is exactly how the government is currently treating FedEx Express and UPS package delivery drivers.

FedEx, which enjoys a competitive advantage because of this unfairness, wants to keep things exactly as they are. UPS, which is getting screwed in the deal, wants the situation fixed. Who can blame them?

You see, FedEx Express drivers fall under the Railway Labor Act because when the company was founded it was primarily an overnight airline service. The Railway Labor Act makes it far more difficult for workers to form a union.

UPS drivers are covered under the National Labor Relations Act because when the company was founded it was primarily a long-distance trucking company. Its drivers are represented by the Teamsters union.

Over the last decade or so, however, both companies have expanded into the same market in the air/ground express delivery business. FedEx Express now has a fleet of ground delivery drivers and UPS now has a fleet of airplanes.

So unlike the two hypothetical pizza delivery drivers Ms. de Rugy references in her column, the drivers for both FedEx and UPS now deliver packages in the same manner and should now be covered under the same labor law. As UPS has been saying all along, a driver is a driver is a driver.

With that principle of equal protection under the law in mind, UPS is supporting an amendment in the pending Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill which would place FedEx Express drivers under the same labor law as UPS’s express drivers.

In other words, leveling the playing field.

After all, FedEx Express uses its special legal status to frighten prospective customers, selling them on the notion that FedEx is more dependable because they are non-union and, therefore, not subject to labor unrest or strikes like its competitor, UPS.

Indeed, FedEx Express is even using its protected non-union status as a selling point in its PR campaign against the current law change with Congress.

Understandably, conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) have asked “Why not put UPS under the RLA instead of putting FedEx Express under the NRLA?” Good question.

Short answer: They tried.

“In 1993,” de Rugy writes, “UPS argued to the NRL Board that all of its activities, ‘including ground operations,’ should be subject to the RLA ‘because the ground operations are part of the air service.’”

And while, according to columnist George Will, “FedEx supported UPS’s efforts” publicly, some suspect that FedEx founder Fred Smith actually has used his considerable lobbying power and extensive congressional relationships to scuttle any such effort behind the scenes.

In any event, de Rugy notes, UPS’s request “was denied, opening the path to today’s battle.”

So you see, UPS tried to get the government to treat its express delivery drivers in the same favorable manner as it treats FedEx’s express delivery drivers.

But because Congress refused, UPS now has little choice but to support legislative efforts to level the playing field by getting Congress to treat FedEx’s express delivery drivers in the same unfavorable manner as the law treats UPS’s express delivery drivers.

Equal protection under the law. A driver is a driver is a driver.

Ms. de Rugy, however, thinks UPS should “continue pushing for reclassification, or just competing fair and square under current law.”

But that’s the point. Current law does NOT treat UPS “fair and square.” Current law gives FedEx Express a significant competitive advantage – and there’s no way on God’s green earth that today’s Democrat-controlled White House and Congress are going to reclassify UPS under the RLA.

Ain’t…gonna…happen.

The ideal solution, of course, would be to scrap the Industrial Revolution-era NLRA set of labor laws entirely, as well as the RLA, and start from scratch developing a new set of labor laws which would better reflect the modern day era’s high-tech and service-oriented workforce. But that makes too much sense, so don’t hold your breath waiting.

Plus, Congress has a health care system to ruin. Priorities, you know.

In any event, don’t blame UPS for this mess. Blame the government. That should be something UPS and FedEx can both agree on.

But that’s exactly the point UPS is raising.

Because of the special treatment extended to FedEx, UPS is at a marketing disadvantage in its competition with FedEx because FedEx sells customers on the unfair advantage it enjoys under present labor law. FedEx claims it’s a more reliable and dependable express delivery operation because its drivers aren’t union members and can’t strike. Naturally, the company wishes to retain this extraordinary marketing advantage.

According to an Associated Press report of the event, Malcolm Berkley, spokesman for UPS, explained to the group that “The only question that’s being asked in Congress is why should one company have a legislative advantage over everyone else in this industry.” FedEx has yet to come up with a valid reason for ths advantage other than….well, that’s the way it’s always been.

Which is sort of like arguing that the law shouldn’t have been changed to give women the right to vote because prohibiting them from doing so was the way it had always been done. In other words, a pretty lame argument.

The reason it’s always been that way, as the Reuters report explains, is because “FedEx began as an express delivery airline about 36 years ago, before adding trucks.” But as the UPS represenatitve points out, “The fact of the matter is packages are not delivered by airplanes, they are delivered by drivers and vehicles.” Mr. Berkley asked after the debate “What is it about their express drivers that is so special that they should be under a different law than every other driver in the country?”

Darned good question.

In response, the AP reported that “Maury Lane, FedEx’s director of corporate communications at the company’s headquarters in Memphis, Tenn., said the disagreement is about UPS trying to put a monkey wrench into FedEx’s successful business model.”

Well, even if that was so…duh.

FedEx’s “successful business model” relies on the United States government giving it an unfair competitive advantage over UPS. This would be like McDonalds complaining if federal law exempted Burger King from the minimum wage law.

The question here isn’t whether or not FedEx has built a successful business model based on an inequity in the law. It has. The question is whether it should be allowed to continue benefiting from this special treatment. It shouldn’t.

According to the Reuters report of the debate, Lane also complained that the bill was “written by UPS, for UPS and only benefits UPS.” The contrary argument, of course, could well be that the existing law as it applies to the package delivery industry has been written by FedEx, for FedEx and only benefits FedEx.

In other words, a bunch of goose, gander, pot and kettle stuff.

“Lane,” the AP also reported, “told Albuquerque businesspeople that should the provision pass, it could lead to a monopoly of the 102-year-old UPS, raising prices and reducing choices for consumers.”

Oh, puh-lease. Playing the “Armageddon Card,” Maury? You could also say that if the provision was to pass, it *could* lead to a meteor striking and destroying the earth, eventually leading to the return of the dinosaurs.

The fact is, even if the law was to pass, that doesn’t mean FedEx’s drivers would “go union.” And even if they did, that sure as heck wouldn’t put FedEx out of business. After all, UPS currently provides the same service as FedEx for roughly the same price and its drivers belong to the Teamsters union.

So even in a worst-case scenario, passage of this field-leveling law wouldn’t lead to a UPS monopoly of the package delivery industry. That’s just absurd.

Speaking of absurd, the Albuquerque Business Journal report of the debate also noted that FedEx continues to falsely claim that passage of this bill amounts to a “bailout” for UPS.

Actually, the reality is that the current law has served as a “bailout” for FedEx ever since it entered into package delivery competition with UPS. It’s been like letting the company hit from the ladies’ tees, or spotting the company 10 points in a game of ping-pong. It’s like letting the company use its hands in a soccer match, or forcing its competitor in a marathon race to run carrying a 10-pound sack of flour.

As Mr. Berkley said in the debate, what this is about is “equal treatment of drivers under the law. A driver is a driver is a driver.”

And treating one driver differently from another driver under the law is about as American as sauerkraut and borscht. It’s time to right this wrong.

“How much is UPS willing to pay for a secret, anti-competitive bailout that could raise consumer prices and reduce reliability in overnight deliveries? For UPS, its lobbying costs nearly tripled in the past three months alone. UPS spent $4.4 million on lobbying charges between July and September, more than three times as much in the previous quarter ($1.4 million).

“So what did the $4.4 million buy UPS? A UPS spokesman who was quoted in a Bloomberg article on the lobby expenditures said a ‘significant portion’ of the increased lobbying costs went to an employee letter writing campaign on labor legislation and other activities ‘to educate officials about our perspective…’”

1.) There is no bailout…as we all know. Calling a dog a horse doesn’t make a dog a horse. This is just FedEx’s silly PR effort to fool the uneducated into thinking there’s a bailout involved where no bailout is involved. It’s dishonest as hell, but FedEx couldn’t care less.

2.) There’s nothing “secret” about this issue at all. We’re talking about a very public piece of federal legislation which has been discussed and debated and considered for many months. And in reality, this issue has been around for YEARS. Falsely calling this bill “secret” is, again, dishonest. But at least it’s par for the FedEx course.

3.) FedEx claims the bill “could” raise consumer prices without backing up its claim. This is just a “feeling” FedEx has. If the bill passes, FedEx says this might happen or that might happen – but no one can say for sure that ANY of FedEx’s doomsday scenarios will ever take place.

4.) FedEx claims the bill “could” reduce reliability in overnight deliveries. Again, they don’t back up their claim. It’s just a feeling. The subliminal message they are trying to convey, however, is that the bill *might* result in FedEx going union, and that the union *might* someday go out on strike, and if it does, there *might* be an impact on express deliveries.

Thank goodness we’d still have UPS to pick up the slack!

5.) But the most outrageous aspect of this typically outrageous piece of FedEx propaganda is this whining about UPS increasing its lobbying efforts over the last three months – as though there was some sinister, underhanded “black box” operation going on. What a load of flapdoodle.

Here’s what really happened…

Last June, FedEx launched a largely anonymous, misleading, multi-million dollar attack campaign against UPS in an effort to retain special treatment under the law which gives them a huge marketing advantage over their competitors.

If you want to talk about “secret,” just try asking FedEx which PR firm is behind their dishonest advertising campaign and how much they’re spending on it.

In any event, UPS reportedly went to their employees, explained how FedEx’s ad campaign was jeopardizing their livelihoods, and helped them contact their members of Congress on a piece of pending legislation.

The company has simply been responding to FedEx’s attacks – and the cost of that campaign, unlike FedEx’s efforts, is open and fully disclosed.

And since when did it become wrong for citizens of the United States to contact their elected representatives in Congress, educate them about their perspective, and petition for redress of a grievance – in this case the unfair and special treatment FedEx enjoys under our labor laws?

Oh, and by the way – FedEx is nothing if not a master of hypocrisy on this issue.

In the same email newsletter complaining about UPS employees contacting their members of Congress, “The Brown Bailout Newsletter” includes this prominent link:

“Act Now: If you haven’t written your legislators, do it now.”

Shameless.

To refresh everyone’s memory, here’s how FedEx describes itself and the legislation currently pending before the United States Senate:

“Since the company’s founding in 1971, FedEx Express has remained under the jurisdiction of the RLA. We firmly believe that is the proper classification for our company. Unlike our competition, we operate an integrated air/ground network and handle air shipments separately in that network.

“RLA jurisdiction gives us the best opportunity to deliver reliable, uninterrupted service to customers. It is that superior service that has allowed us to grow in spite of the best efforts of a larger, more profitable competitor — UPS. Their current lobbying campaign, working hand-in-hand with the Teamsters, is another attempt by UPS to gain a competitive advantage that they have been unable to gain through their service performance.”

First, the RLA stands for Railway Labor Act – even though FedEx Express is not, you know, a railroad. But we’re dealing with government here, so it’s not supposed to make any sense. That said, the RLA is a special set of labor laws designed to make it harder for labor unions to organize a company’s workforce.

Every other employer generally falls under the auspices of the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, a horrible mish-mash of government meddling in the private employment relationships of American companies which tilts far too far towards organized labor. But that’s another argument for another day.

The essence of this issue is that FedEx Express’s express package-delivery air/ground workforce is treated differently under the law than its competitors’ express package-delivery air/ground workforces. And this unequal treatment under the law gives FedEx Express a tremendous marketing advantage over its competitors.

Indeed, to this day FedEx Express is claiming its non-union status, protected by being covered under a different set of labor laws than its competitors, allows it to provide – as you can read for yourself in the statement above – “the best opportunity to deliver reliable, uninterrupted service to customers.”

FedEx Express uses its non-union status as a sales weapon the way a used car salesman uses low mileage.

But even that isn’t the point. This isn’t about FedEx Express’s air/ground package delivery rivalry with UPS. And it’s not about the Teamsters or organized labor, both of which should go the way of the dinosaur. It’s about….the law. And the uniquely American principle of equality under the law.

FedEx Express’s express package delivery drivers pick up packages and deliver them to and/or from an airport. UPS’s express package delivery drivers pick up packages and deliver them to and/or from an airport. As far as the law is concerned, both companies and their drivers should be governed under the same law. Period.

This isn’t an attempt, as FedEx Express falsely claims, by UPS “to gain a competitive advantage that they have been unable to gain through their service performance.”

This is simply an attempt by Congress to level the express package delivery playing field and make sure that competitors are all playing under the same rules; that one team doesn’t get four strikes, five outs and ten players.

FedEx Express is trying to sell Congress on the notion that unequal treatment under the law is a good thing. Congress may want to check the odometer on this clunker of an idea before they end up buying a lemon.

Imagine going to a baseball game. On the surface, it appears to be a fair game with both teams playing by the same rules. Later, you find out that a loophole allows the opposing team to use corked bats, which are lighter and give its batters a faster swing and improved timing. For every other team in the league, corked bats are prohibited — except for this one.

Is this fair? It is if you’re FedEx, only the stakes are much higher than a baseball game.

FedEx has recently undertaken a very public lobbying and media campaign to prevent Congress from enacting legislation to bring it under the same labor laws that govern every other delivery company in America.

To meet the needs of the modern economy, package delivery businesses such as UPS and FedEx operate integrated networks that utilize both air and ground transportation. Despite the fact that the drivers in those networks do the same work, drive the same kinds of trucks and follow similar schedules, they are governed by different labor laws.

Congress is trying to fix this inconsistency, but FedEx, which has benefitted from this inequity in labor law for years, is falsely claiming the change would reduce access to global markets, increase its costs and impact its reliability. All of this noise is just an attempt to distract from the fact that they’re using corked bats.

The law that FedEx is working so hard to prevent would only ensure that employees who perform the same job at competing companies are covered by the same law.

I started at UPS 34 years ago as a driver. After two decades of working my way up in our ground business, I shifted to the air express side, where I’ve managed operations for the past 12 years. I have learned both UPS and FedEx inside and out, and I can tell you unequivocally that our people do the same jobs and should be governed by the same law.

Why is all this important to the people of Kentucky? Beyond the 32,000 jobs UPS and its business partners have created in the Bluegrass, it’s a matter of fairness.

Our nation’s commitment to fairness is what protects individuals and businesses large and small. We all lose when certain companies and individuals think they don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

It’s time to get back to basics. Fair is fair, and the law should apply equally to delivery drivers doing the same work.