FedEx Freight | The Union Debate Thread

[Redracer3136]

Now the challenging part. That consensus thing. The uncomfortable truth about seeking pension gains, IMHO.

Those who would benefit most (younger newest hires), are likely to be less interested in this than those who care the most, (those nearing retirement).

You see, this is where we are. A dilemma of sorts, when funding improvements. In order to benefit the most people, the only areas equally beneficial to all is either to place all gains into wages, and/or a benefit with an immediate return. This leaves the pension increase as unlikely to be a universally popular area to fund, unless gradual increases were weighted even more heavily to the later years earnings.

There is always a certain dollar amount available. The question is where to put it. Solid Union representation "could" increase the dollar amount available, but the dilemma of where to put it still remains.

IMHO, only after the prevailing wage has been achieved at all locations, AND top shelf insurance is offered, then retirement can become the priority. At that point (again IMHO) an improved 401k match would be a priority in front of the pension increase.

We could debate the order of importance and whether some mixture of the above would be in order. Things being different from one location to the next would certainly effect the weight given to each from a given perspective. I think the above is a solid list, in order of priority.

Although I agree with some of your post, there are some discrepancies I'd like to address....

As for the consensus thing....good luck getting the majority to agree on anything, except for the fact that we don't need a union at this company.

I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph.

The only area equally beneficial to all is to place all gains in wages and then let each individual employee decide what's best for themselves personally. I seriously doubt that a consensus would agree to benefit with an immediate return and a pension weighted toward the later years isn't a good idea either IMO. Look at city bus drivers who have this benefit, in their "later years", they work as many hours as possible (including a plethora of OT) in order to pump up their retirement numbers....not something most would look forward to in their later years as many like to wind down and work less hours during this time.

I disagree with "solid union representation could increase the dollar amount", the fact that everything has to be bargained suggest that it "could" get you nothing.

IMHO, after a prevailing increase, you can kiss top shelf healthcare, our pension, and 401 increases goodbye....again, you can only squeeze so much milk from the cow!!

I agree, we could debate the whole issue but I just don't see a mixture of anything, put everything in our wages and let us decide where to put it.

 

[SwampRatt]

Normally I wouldn't entertain your nonsense, but I have a beer with you and play briefly...

could YOU please show the class where I allegedly claimed that Mr Ratt had "ever specifically complained about the underfunded status??" Good luck with that one, it should keep you busy for a while!!.

Easy, low hanging fruit first:

What Swamp doesn't tell the class, while he continues his attempt to mislead the masses with the -5 billion pension number from the company's financial statement

Prior to 2012, pension plans used a two year average of interest rates which is conducive to Swamp since it supports his claim of our pension fund being underfunded...

 

[SwampRatt]

Sorry for the delayed response, it took two days for me to recover from all of the spin...

...and isn't this what you did when you posted the -5 billion number...

It took you three days, and this is the best you can do? Ouch Man.


1) The fact is, the change in the reporting requirements, per Map-21 LOWERED the minimum required funding, in order to save many companies (Not FedEx) from an impossible funding mandate that would likely have created a crisis. Those companies that fund at the (new)minimum will likely face a day of reckoning, if interest rates to not return to normal levels. I did give FedEx credit for not going that route.


The 5+billion unfunded number was posted only for the shear irony, since that is the number one gripe from the anti union crowd as it pertains to CSPF.

Yes, it is underfunded, as it should be. Total long term liability vs current fund balance.


The Government regulatory definition of fully funded and the real world definition are two different things. FedEx Corp. Pension PLANS have 5 billion in unfunded liabilities. Yes, they do. And Yes, they should. 5 billion sitting in a lock box somewhere would be a terrible waste of funds for a liability that will accrue over time, and will be further funded over time. I never had a problem with that, as your 3 day search has confirmed.

all that matters is how pension funds calculate their liabilities in 2016 and according to the laws in place in 2016, our pension fund is over funded at 108.19%...period!!

NO Red, that is not all that matters. What matters is that FedEx funds the plan over time, in an amount that will cover liabilities. They are doing that. If you trust your Government to tell you how to fund anything, you are truly in for a rude awakening. FedEx seems to know better. If you also think that FedEx Freight has enough cash sitting in an account (today), to cover 108.19% of the expected pension liability, then you understand less about finance than I thought.

 

[SwampRatt]

It's not 5 billion in the hole at all, I believe it doesn't even have a billion in assets. Without "adjusted interested rates" it's 88.10% funded.

These numbers pertain to Government mandated minimums NOT total liabilities of the PLANS vs current funding. Current funding is, per annual report, 5 billion less than total liabilities. Not a problem, but true none the less.

 

[SwampRatt]

Not at all, reality is that's it's funded at 108.19%.

Negative.

It it funded at 108.19% of the MINIMUM required. Not 108.19% of total liability.

 

[johndeere4020]

If I could give a 1/2 "like" I would...

No, by the old laws and calculating using a two year average of interest rates, its 88.1% funded....by using the new laws put into place back in 2012 and calculating using a 25 year average of interest rates, its 108.19% funded.

How could anyone possibly get a true average using only two years?

I understand that I was just pointing out that even worse case scenario it's 88% funded.

 

[johndeere4020]

These numbers pertain to Government mandated minimums NOT total liabilities of the PLANS vs current funding. Current funding is, per annual report, 5 billion less than total liabilities. Not a problem, but true none the less.

Why are you concerned about the plans other than freight?

 

[Redracer3136]

Normally I wouldn't entertain your nonsense, but I have a beer with you and play briefly...



Easy, low hanging fruit first:

Keep searching....where did I claim in these two quotes that you "complained about the underfunded status" ?? The class is still waiting....

You do know the difference between "mislead" (the word that I used) and "complained" (the word you used)....don't you???

That return gift of a new dictionary will definitely be headed your way first thing Monday morning!!

 

[SwampRatt]

But Mr Ratt, while sounding like you think you're entitled...

NO red, I was pointing out that a better goal than "over funding" a pension, would be to seek higher accruals. Yeah Red, that makes more sense. I think you argue just for the sake of arguing.

How about the FACT that Express continues to kick our butts in revenue (gross and net) as well as OR?? I don't have the numbers in front of me, nor do I have a degree in business management (obviously neither do the guys that attended the shareholder's meeting), but I do have uncommon sense and uncommon sense tells me that when you're more productive and you generate more revenue, then there's more pie to divide out to the masses for their efforts.

You are inconsistent and also wrong. Under your reasoning, FXFE should be paying more than the #2, #3, and #4 carriers, since they are more profitable. Inconsistent. You are wrong if you think Express always "kicks our butt". No sir, not always. While currently true, the last time I compared it, Freight had a higher Operating Ratio, the only applicable number due to scale.
http://investors.fedex.com/news-and...14/FedEx-Corp-Reports-Strong-Earnings-Growth/

Perhaps if guys didn't drag their feet while turning 1.5 stops per hour with 8.7 miles between stops, over a 10 hour work day, maybe then we too could possibly get a bigger piece of the pie!!

I'll let that statement speak for itself, in terms of style and class.

 

[SwampRatt]

Why are you concerned about the plans other than freight?

I AM NOT CONCERNED.

You and Red, but especially you should know better.

The PENSION and it's funded status is NOT my issue, and never was.

There are facts that pertain to the status, none of which concern me at all.

 

[johndeere4020]

I AM NOT CONCERNED.

You and Red, but especially you should know better.

The PENSION and it's funded status is NOT my issue, and never was.

There are facts that pertain to the status, none of which concern me at all.

Fair enough.

 

[SwampRatt]

Back on topic:

One last example to consider as far as the pension as a goal worthy of funding (or not).


Keeping it simple, let's imagine we have a 2% increase available. We could:


1)Put it into wages-50-54 cents/hour.

2)Add 2% to the pension contribution across the board.

3)Increase 401k by 2%. Either by increasing the 50% match up to the 10% mark, or making the 1st 4% a 100% match.


If 4% was available, we could do 2 of the above, or double either one...6% could do all three, or triple one item.

Which would YOU choose?

 

[Redracer3136]

It took you three days, and this is the best you can do? Ouch Man.


1) The fact is, the change in the reporting requirements, per Map-21 LOWERED the minimum required funding, in order to save many companies (Not FedEx) from an impossible funding mandate that would likely have created a crisis. Those companies that fund at the (new)minimum will likely face a day of reckoning, if interest rates to not return to normal levels. I did give FedEx credit for not going that route.


The 5+billion unfunded number was posted only for the shear irony, since that is the number one gripe from the anti union crowd as it pertains to CSPF.

Yes, it is underfunded, as it should be. Total long term liability vs current fund balance.


The Government regulatory definition of fully funded and the real world definition are two different things. FedEx Corp. Pension PLANS have 5 billion in unfunded liabilities. Yes, they do. And Yes, they should. 5 billion sitting in a lock box somewhere would be a terrible waste of funds for a liability that will accrue over time, and will be further funded over time. I never had a problem with that, as your 3 day search has confirmed.

NO Red, that is not all that matters. What matters is that FedEx funds the plan over time, in an amount that will cover liabilities. They are doing that. If you trust your Government to tell you how to fund anything, you are truly in for a rude awakening. FedEx seems to know better. If you also think that FedEx Freight has enough cash sitting in an account (today), to cover 108.19% of the expected pension liability, then you understand less about finance than I thought.

It only took 5 mins to respond but it did take me three days to find the time to respond...

1) Hmmmm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that interest rates will have to return to normal levels eventually, my guess is they'll probably start returning should the "other party" take the White House next Jan....the "current party" can't manipulate them forever!! The change in the law was not only to cover the "current party's" ass, but it also makes uncommon sense....how can anyone get a "true average" when only averaging two years??

You obviously don't understand the anti's "gripe" about CSPF...perhaps you didn't listen to our argument but rather the talking points from the hall....go figure. I'm guessing your intentions of continuously posting the -5 billion number also had something to do with those same talking points!!

It's currently funded at 108.19%, what part do you not understand??

Yes, Corp's total plans are underfunded by 5 billion but that number also includes international pension plans, unfunded, non-qualified plans, etc..., our pension plan at FXFE is fully/over funded.

I never claimed to rely on the Govt to tell "me" how to fund anything, nor did I claim the company had or needed the cash to fund our pension's liability....and yes, I understand how finance works. I also understand how you're continuing to try and get out of the painted in corner!!

 

[SwampRatt]

It only took 5 mins to respond but it did take me three days to find the time to respond...

1) Hmmmm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that interest rates will have to return to normal levels eventually, my guess is they'll probably start returning should the "other party" take the White House next Jan....the "current party" can't manipulate them forever!! The change in the law was not only to cover the "current party's" ass, but it also makes uncommon sense....how can anyone get a "true average" when only averaging two years??

You obviously don't understand the anti's "gripe" about CSPF...perhaps you didn't listen to our argument but rather the talking points from the hall....go figure. I'm guessing your intentions of continuously posting the -5 billion number also had something to do with those same talking points!!

It's currently funded at 108.19%, what part do you not understand??

Yes, Corp's total plans are underfunded by 5 billion but that number also includes international pension plans, unfunded, non-qualified plans, etc..., our pension plan at FXFE is fully/over funded.

I never claimed to rely on the Govt to tell "me" how to fund anything, nor did I claim the company had or needed the cash to fund our pension's liability....and yes, I understand how finance works. I also understand how you're continuing to try and get out of the painted in corner!!

1) nothing there to disagree with, except the possibility of a new normal. I hate to predict how bad things can potentially get...

The rest? Nonsense. Especially the concept that you seem to have accepted. That foolishness that due to a simple regulatory change, POOF, above 100% fully funded, just like that. OK...

 

[Redracer3136]

NO red, I was pointing out that a better goal than "over funding" a pension, would be to seek higher accruals. Yeah Red, that makes more sense. I think you argue just for the sake of arguing.

I thought you were claiming our pension wasn't over funded but actually underfunded...which is it??

You are inconsistent and also wrong. Under your reasoning, FXFE should be paying more than the #2, #3, and #4 carriers, since they are more profitable. Inconsistent. You are wrong if you think Express always "kicks our butt". No sir, not always. While currently true, the last time I compared it, Freight had a higher Operating Ratio, the only applicable number due to scale.
http://investors.fedex.com/news-and...14/FedEx-Corp-Reports-Strong-Earnings-Growth/

No, under my reasoning, if you want us to have what Express has, perhaps we should first put up the numbers they do... consistently....one year here and there doesn't justify your position. Wrong, scale is applicable, it's their scale that allows them the returns they enjoy which are passed on in their increased benefits rate. I thought you understood finance??

I'll let that statement speak for itself, in terms of style and class.

Most of us here in CLT do let those numbers speak for themselves since those numbers are from a pro-union guy....and most are tired of pulling his dead weight!! Maybe if he put the same effort into doing the job that he gets paid to do as he does organizing, he could triple those numbers and we all could enjoy the increased benefit rates you speak of!!

 

[Redracer3136]

1) nothing there to disagree with, except the possibility of a new normal. I hate to predict how bad things can potentially get...

The rest? Nonsense. Especially the concept that you seem to have accepted. That foolishness that due to a simple regulatory change, POOF, above 100% fully funded, just like that. OK...

You act as if the law was changed yesterday...did you not fully look at the Annual Funding Notice? The new law took effect in 2012, in 2013 we were underfunded...adjustments were made in the following years to get us back to funded.

 

[SwampRatt]

I thought you were claiming our pension wasn't over funded but actually underfunded...which is it??




No, under my reasoning, if you want us to have what Express has, perhaps we should first put up the numbers they do... consistently....one year here and there doesn't justify your position. Wrong, scale is applicable, it's their scale that allows them the returns they enjoy which are passed on in their increased benefits rate. I thought you understood finance??



Most of us here in CLT do let those numbers speak for themselves since those numbers are from a pro-union guy....and most are tired of pulling his dead weight!! Maybe if he put the same effort into doing the job that he gets paid to do as he does organizing, he could triple those numbers and we all could enjoy the increased benefit rates you speak of!!

 

[Cab Lizzard]

I thought you were claiming our pension wasn't over funded but actually underfunded...which is it??




No, under my reasoning, if you want us to have what Express has, perhaps we should first put up the numbers they do... consistently....one year here and there doesn't justify your position. Wrong, scale is applicable, it's their scale that allows them the returns they enjoy which are passed on in their increased benefits rate. I thought you understood finance??



Most of us here in CLT do let those numbers speak for themselves since those numbers are from a pro-union guy....and most are tired of pulling his dead weight!! Maybe if he put the same effort into doing the job that he gets paid to do as he does organizing, he could triple those numbers and we all could enjoy the increased benefit rates you speak of!!

Red you need a management job !!
You will fit right in ........

 

[troubleman84]

Red you need a management job !!
You will fit right in ........

He would be a great assistant terminal manager.

 

[Redracer3136]

Thx Mr Ratt, I'll take that as a compliment!!
I do have a tendency to say what other people are thinking but are afraid to say themselves!!