What's new

FedEx Freight | The Union Debate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
runawaytrain said:
If I was a CEO and I had employees go on strike because of pay cuts ( i.e.) because their demands forced me to fire all my additional employees and prevented my company from growing, I'd much rather outsource. Unions are contradicting their purpose.
Click to expand...
If my aunt had testicals she would be my uncle.....chances of you runing a company are about the same
 
SwampRatt said:
Insurance: I'll also agree that most never meet, let alone, exceed their deductible. Again, I think the VALUE of the plan should be the plan, regardless of whether or not one uses it."

The value of ones plan would vary a great deal with how much they use it. The ratio of cost:anticipated benefit or cost:maximum benefit would provide a better idea of just how valuable a specific plan.
Click to expand...
 
SwampRatt said:
Insurance: I'll also agree that most never meet, let alone, exceed their deductible. Again, I think the VALUE of the plan should be the plan, regardless of whether or not one uses it.
Click to expand...
OOPS, should have read: the VALUE of the plan should be the consideration, regardless of whether or not one uses it.

EX396 said:
The value of ones plan would vary a great deal with how much they use it. The ratio of cost:anticipated benefit or cost:maximum benefit would provide a better idea of just how valuable a specific plan.
Click to expand...

Very true, EX. Still, the potential benefit has actual monetary value, as well. The comfort of knowing that you are covered, if the unforeseen arises, has value. Once someone has a preexisting condition, it becomes more of a payment plan, than an insurance plan, and yes, THEN it becomes extremely more valuable.
 
SwampRatt said:
Still, the potential benefit has actual monetary value, as well. The comfort of knowing that you are covered, if the unforeseen arises, has value. Once someone has a preexisting condition, it becomes more of a payment plan, than an insurance plan, and yes, THEN it becomes extremely more valuable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I thought you had stated something along the lines of the value of a plan should be the value of the plan, regardless of how much someone uses it.

Hypothetical:

Plan X premium is 12K/year and 1500 max out of pocket
Plan Y premium is 8K/year and 2500 max out of pocket.

The premium difference is 4K. Give your employee $2K of that $4K, use 1 of the 2K to cover the additional payroll taxes and the reduction in corporate expenses. Employee is guaranteed to be at least $1K ahead (if the crap hits the fan), employer is $1K ahead no matter what happens. If the employee remains healthy/injury free they are $2K ahead every year.

In other words, please don't offset my wages with more insurance than I want and tell me you've added value to my compensation package.
 
SwampRatt said:
AF, I'll concede to an extent, that your 10% figure over 5 yrs. was not too far off. Based on an average 2%x5 =10% (actually 10.4%). I can't currently disprove the average rate of increase.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the backhanded concession on that one......lol............the numbers dont lie. I do think you are right on about the starting vs. top wage, seems that I recall going to more of a flat rate raise somewhere in there that would skew the %'s a bit. I have narrowed down the top scale in 2010 to 21.60, which means top scale wages would have increased 9.63% over the 5 year period. Just shy of the lower end of my original guesstimate, but when coupled with your inflation figures, shows that our wages did outpace inflation during the 5 year period. I am not sure what yearly % of increase would really have to do with it.............we got from point A to point B, not sure I would really care so much about the increments that got us there.

SwampRatt said:
I do recall since the FedEx take over, raises always lagged slightly behind inflation (at my location and yours). Again, since I can't prove it (at this time), you can either take my word for it (until I obtain proof), or chalk it up to swampratt babble. I'm good either way. One day I'll come across an old check stub (or two) to provide historical reference.
Click to expand...

No disagreement here.......I do recall thinking the raises in that timeframe, while fair, werent always anything to write home about. One point of contention is that during those years there was also generally another "benefit" added each year in conjunction with the yearly increase that added "value" to the package. One year was PTO days, another year it was an increased number of PTO days based on service time, another was when the company paid life insurance was added........I dont recall the other stuff that came about in that era.

SwampRatt said:
Insurance: I'll also agree that most never meet, let alone, exceed their deductible. Again, I think the VALUE of the plan should be the plan, regardless of whether or not one uses it. Example: Life insurance has considerable value, even though very few will use it in a given year. The benefit has a specific value, and is a part of our compensation package. Reduce or eliminate it, and you reduce the value of the compensation package to all. Not just few those who use it.
Click to expand...

Wish we had continued to get the overall package statements that we used to get several years ago, would probably help me illustrate the point I am about to make. Sure, the overall value to the employee dropped........but I would be willing to bet that it was not nearly at the same rate that the company's cost increased to provide the same coverage. Which would mean that the value of the package did increase.........the company paying more for the same coverage is increased "value" to the employees. If the company did not pony up more money for each employee, what kind of coverage do you think would currently exist?

SwampRatt said:
While I understand the argument you make regarding the ratio between profit and wages, that is not really the point. Did our wages soar during the '03-'08 period, to coincide with soaring profits? NO. Gross Revenue is, therefore, a more accurate gauge as to the VALUE we provide.
Click to expand...

Disagree........profits are what drive improvements. If you are breaking even on your revenues, no matter how large they are, what kind of business sense would it make to further increase your labor costs?

SwampRatt said:
Just because the Company chooses to lower their margin (much like how Walmart succeeds), is it reasonable for the Company to also lower employees' profit margin? We haul a lot more freight, a lot more efficiently. That equates to a lot more work done. At a lower margin for us, the employees. We can't help it if profit didn't coincide with revenue. Our job is to provide the service that brings revenue, while doing so efficiently, and safely. That service demands market value. Preferably at the higher end of the range of acceptable, based on our excellence in providing that service.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, where prices are effectively fixed and even regulated, yes...........

The service provided to the company does demand market value, which is as variable as any other market value in the world. What happens when the market changes and the service is not longer compensated by the end user at the same rate? How should that situation be handled? Tough call really............do you hold the line and watch market share go to other companies, while you lose your valued employees to reduced levels, or do you try and snap up enough to efficiently run your operation and retain and keep fed the bulk of your workforce?

The 90 for 90 is pretty much a Channel 4 myth..........yes, the company did veer a bit from its usually tight stance regarding price for our service to try and grab enough market share to ensure we remained profitable with our current workforce. Obviously it got out of hand and we were not prepared with staffing, infrastructure or planning to handle the influx effectively. Hindsight is 20/20 in that regard.

The market for your services are only as good as the market for the company's services..........simple economics.

I do agree with you.......the driver shortage will push up wages, but so will the higher demand and higher operating margins that several companies are now beginning to see again.......

Be safe and carry on.........
 
aflifer said:
Appreciate the backhanded concession on that one......lol............the numbers dont lie. I do think you are right on about the starting vs. top wage, seems that I recall going to more of a flat rate raise somewhere in there that would skew the %'s a bit. I have narrowed down the top scale in 2010 to 21.60, which means top scale wages would have increased 9.63% over the 5 year period. Just shy of the lower end of my original guesstimate, but when coupled with your inflation figures, shows that our wages did outpace inflation during the 5 year period. I am not sure what yearly % of increase would really have to do with it.............we got from point A to point B, not sure I would really care so much about the increments that got us there.




No disagreement here.......I do recall thinking the raises in that timeframe, while fair, werent always anything to write home about. One point of contention is that during those years there was also generally another "benefit" added each year in conjunction with the yearly increase that added "value" to the package. One year was PTO days, another year it was an increased number of PTO days based on service time, another was when the company paid life insurance was added........I dont recall the other stuff that came about in that era.



Wish we had continued to get the overall package statements that we used to get several years ago, would probably help me illustrate the point I am about to make. Sure, the overall value to the employee dropped........but I would be willing to bet that it was not nearly at the same rate that the company's cost increased to provide the same coverage. Which would mean that the value of the package did increase.........the company paying more for the same coverage is increased "value" to the employees. If the company did not pony up more money for each employee, what kind of coverage do you think would currently exist?
Click to expand...

Not backhanded at all, at least not intended to be. I just recall most every year when compared to cost of living index, our wage did not seem to keep up. Without having documentation to prove it, I can't say for certain. I do know that I did look it up at the time, during our annual speculation period approaching the annual raise video.

Even your stated 2010 top wage of $21.60 shows that before the 80 cents we recently received, our raises were indeed flat. rising just 5.9% between 2010 and Sept of 2014. During the same period, inflation totaled 7.2%
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm


You do make a valid point, in that the cost of insurance did go up faster than overall consumer prices. That is a fact that I'd not considered, even though our employee costs did rise as well, usually offsetting a significant portion of our annual wage increases.

One of the added benefits was insurance coverage to part time workers. An admirable gesture, but one that reduced the full time employees' increase that year.

I too wish we'd continued to receive those statements showing total compensation.
aflifer said:
Disagree........profits are what drive improvements. If you are breaking even on your revenues, no matter how large they are, what kind of business sense would it make to further increase your labor costs?



In a perfect world, where prices are effectively fixed and even regulated, yes...........

The service provided to the company does demand market value, which is as variable as any other market value in the world. What happens when the market changes and the service is not longer compensated by the end user at the same rate? How should that situation be handled? Tough call really............do you hold the line and watch market share go to other companies, while you lose your valued employees to reduced levels, or do you try and snap up enough to efficiently run your operation and retain and keep fed the bulk of your workforce?

The 90 for 90 is pretty much a Channel 4 myth..........yes, the company did veer a bit from its usually tight stance regarding price for our service to try and grab enough market share to ensure we remained profitable with our current workforce. Obviously it got out of hand and we were not prepared with staffing, infrastructure or planning to handle the influx effectively. Hindsight is 20/20 in that regard.

The market for your services are only as good as the market for the company's services..........simple economics.

I do agree with you.......the driver shortage will push up wages, but so will the higher demand and higher operating margins that several companies are now beginning to see again.......

Be safe and carry on.........
Click to expand...

We're unlikely to agree on which portion of the equation reflects our value as employees. I still contend revenue shows the value, more than profit. BUT neither is a direct factor to FedEx. Revenue has risen by huge amounts. almost every year. Profits, which you prefer to use, soared up until 2006/2007, reaching a high of 485 million in 2006. 52% higher than 2014. 2006 profits were also 151% higher than 2003. Again, our compensation showed no relationship to profits. The numbers don't lie.

Finally, the 90/90 program. That was not a myth, as it was covered during meeting the city drivers had with sales. It was during the period of the near demise of YRC. The only proof I can find at the moment is this article. It is very interesting and covers manipulation of rates (industry wide) as well as mentions the 90/90 program. I found it to be informative. check it out: http://www.smartfreightware.com/author/jim-bramlett/page/13/

"We don’t need to see the utterly ridiculous 90% discount for 90 days to keep the market in balance"

Gotta run:smilie93c peelout:
 
SwampRatt said:
We're unlikely to agree on which portion of the equation reflects our value as employees. I still contend revenue shows the value, more than profit.
Click to expand...

Oranges cost you 10cents a piece. You have two employees who sell them for your company. Which employee is more valuable to you?

The employee who sells one an hour for 20 cents ($1752 annual revenue )

or

The employee who sells 100 an hour but for 9 cents each? ($78,840 annual revenue )

Net profit per employee is a truer measure of the employees' value to the company.

I can make $10B a year in profit but if it takes 1M employees to do that, their work isn't as valuable as a company that makes $200K/year profit with 2 employees.

Now that I've made that argument, I wonder where FedEx falls in line with the other LTL's in regards to NET PROFIT per employee?
 
EX396 said:
Oranges cost you 10cents a piece. You have two employees who sell them for your company. Which employee is more valuable to you?

The employee who sells one an hour for 20 cents ($1752 annual revenue )

or

The employee who sells 100 an hour but for 9 cents each? ($78,840 annual revenue )

Net profit per employee is a truer measure of the employees' value to the company.

I can make $10B a year in profit but if it takes 1M employees to do that, their work isn't as valuable as a company that makes $200K/year profit with 2 employees.

Now that I've made that argument, I wonder where FedEx falls in line with the other LTL's in regards to NET PROFIT per employee?
Click to expand...

Great comparison to an employees worth.
If the oranges are the same and the employees sell in the same area, then it's equal
Hardly comparable to the LTL industry.
No two trucks and drivers have the same freight, same traffic conditions each day or the same weather.
The trucks aren't loaded the same, the trucks themselves may be faster, or slower, etc.

Can anyone on this thread stand up and say that was a good comparison ?
 
fxstc07 said:
Great comparison to an employees worth.
If the oranges are the same and the employees sell in the same area, then it's equal
Hardly comparable to the LTL industry.
No two trucks and drivers have the same freight, same traffic conditions each day or the same weather.
The trucks aren't loaded the same, the trucks themselves may be faster, or slower, etc.

Can anyone on this thread stand up and say that was a good comparison ?
Click to expand...
When you compare the same working conditions it is good. You are trying to compare a 10 stop 300 mile city peddle run with a route that has 10 deliveries on the same street. Your trying to cloud the picture but his point is understood .. At least by me
 
runawaytrain said:
When you compare the same working conditions it is good. You are trying to compare a 10 stop 300 mile city peddle run with a route that has 10 deliveries on the same street. Your trying to cloud the picture but his point is understood .. At least by me
Click to expand...

Not clouding any picture.
On any given day, no two runs or trips are the same in the LTL industry.
I have seen the management paperwork that compares everything from bills per hour, miles for hour, time to first stop, revenue per stop, etc.
All management looks at is those numbers.
You can't compare a driver to someone that sells oranges.

On the day that all drivers take the same load, to the same destination, in identical tractors, and face the same traffic, etc, is the day you can make that comparison.
 
runawaytrain said:
When you compare the same working conditions it is good. You are trying to compare a 10 stop 300 mile city peddle run with a route that has 10 deliveries on the same street. Your trying to cloud the picture but his point is understood .. At least by me
Click to expand...

Some ignored content for me between posts, so I'm not sure how the point was attempted to be clouded.

Bottom line is: You can have employees generating a crap-ton of revenue but if they cause you to lose money while doing so, their efforts aren't valuable.
 
EX396 said:
Some ignored content for me between posts, so I'm not sure how the point was attempted to be clouded.

Bottom line is: You can have employees generating a crap-ton of revenue but if they cause you to lose money while doing so, their efforts aren't valuable.
Click to expand...
True ... Something was lost along the way for me. Too much on my plate today. Sorry.
 
EX396 said:
Some ignored content for me between posts, so I'm not sure how the point was attempted to be clouded.

Bottom line is: You can have employees generating a crap-ton of revenue but if they cause you to lose money while doing so, their efforts aren't valuable.
Click to expand...

Nothing was ignored.
Instead of a comparison of orange salesman, why not explain your theory how one driver can make more then another this way:
Driver "A" is a two year veteran of the company, is 26 years old and has preformed well. He is a safe driver and can deliver 30 bills per day on his route in the suburban area he runs.
He gets two weeks vacation and is young and healthy.

Driver "B" is a 30 year veteran of the same company, is 56 years old and has performed well. He is a safe driver and can deliver 20 bills a day on his route in the congested city.
He gets four weeks vacation and time has caught up with his knees and back, sometimes he is in pain. He can pass the physical, but is not as healthy as the young man.

Driver "A" has a better ratio of bills delivered and a better revenue total.
Driver "B" delivers less bills and has less revenue.

Should the company look at bills per hour and revenue and decide to terminate Driver "B" for his poor performance ?
Then they would also save on vacations and make more money at the end of each year if they hire another young driver.
Then they can compare drivers like oranges.

Sounds about right ... at least from a management perspective.

Children can ignore other children on the playground. To do it on an adult forum is childish.
 
fxstc07 said:
Nothing was ignored.
Instead of a comparison of orange salesman, why not explain your theory how one driver can make more then another this way:
Driver "A" is a two year veteran of the company, is 26 years old and has preformed well. He is a safe driver and can deliver 30 bills per day on his route in the suburban area he runs.
He gets two weeks vacation and is young and healthy.

Driver "B" is a 30 year veteran of the same company, is 56 years old and has performed well. He is a safe driver and can deliver 20 bills a day on his route in the congested city.
He gets four weeks vacation and time has caught up with his knees and back, sometimes he is in pain. He can pass the physical, but is not as healthy as the young man.

Driver "A" has a better ratio of bills delivered and a better revenue total.
Driver "B" delivers less bills and has less revenue.

Should the company look at bills per hour and revenue and decide to terminate Driver "B" for his poor performance ?
Then they would also save on vacations and make more money at the end of each year if they hire another young driver.
Then they can compare drivers like oranges.

Sounds about right ... at least from a management perspective.

Children can ignore other children on the playground. To do it on an adult forum is childish.
Click to expand...
In your analogy, why would driver A be compared to driver B?

Wouldn't the correct comparison be between driver A and drivers A1 & A2 (A1 & A2 being the two drivers who also run the same area) and driver B compared to drivers B1 & B2 (same as A1 & A2)...as you yourself pointed out in the second line of your post #1672?

This way the comparison would be apples to apples and oranges to oranges....you could compare to see how the drivers who service a certain area stack up to each other rather than drivers from different areas. Yes, they're would still be variables involved but a closer comparison none the less...and if said area doesn't have more than one driver, then A1 & A2 could represent the two drivers who ran the said area in the past...if the same driver has ran the same area for several years, then the comparison would be against his prior numbers from the past....again, they'll always be variables but it's not rocket science either.

Question: What does this have to do with the union debate?
 
Redracer3136 said:
In your analogy, why would driver A be compared to driver B?

Wouldn't the correct comparison be between driver A and drivers A1 & A2 (A1 & A2 being the two drivers who also run the same area) and driver B compared to drivers B1 & B2 (same as A1 & A2)...as you yourself pointed out in the second line of your post #1672?

This way the comparison would be apples to apples and oranges to oranges....you could compare to see how the drivers who service a certain area stack up to each other rather than drivers from different areas. Yes, they're would still be variables involved but a closer comparison none the less...and if said area doesn't have more than one driver, then A1 & A2 could represent the two drivers who ran the said area in the past...if the same driver has ran the same area for several years, then the comparison would be against his prior numbers from the past....again, they'll always be variables but it's not rocket science either.

Question: What does this have to do with the union debate?
Click to expand...

Ask the person that wanted to compare profits with the orange analogy.

As for your question.
Even you admitted variables. There isn't any way to determine comparisons between drivers and routes, even in the same area, route, etc.
Just not possible.
Only management can produce numbers that would compare an impossible scenario of truck drivers, delivery's, routes and traffic conditions and then think they can decide if one is doing better then another.
No, it's not rocket science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top