FedEx Freight | Time has ran out!!

I would like to pretend I didn't just read this but unfortunately that isn't the case!!
Damn Swamp, I'm not sure if you're back peddling or spinning faster, either way I think you've made most of the class dizzy!!

For three years you claimed "we'd never be party to a multi-employer pension fund" and now you're attempting to spin and back pedal with.."oh, uh, I meant the CSPF"...and..."uh, I meant all, or atleast a large percentage"...really??
A respectful and creditable reply would've been...wow, what were those guys thinking...or...huh, not very smart on their part...but your true colors shined through when you took the role of attempting to defend their every move, even when it was a stupid move, and you've managed to lose a little credibility in the process!!

Let's attempt stay on track here...CLT proposed a multi-employer pension fund with the Western Comference that was DOA...EPH proposed the $4.25/hour contribution to our existing PPA that was also DOA, and SBR has proposed the stautus quo, meaning they proposed to keep our current PPA "as is" which ironically hasn't been shot down yet that I'm aware of. The company's position on any MEPF has always been a "no go"!!

Seems I remember you bashing our plan being funded at 88% due to the "criteria used" but now the WCF at 90% using the same criteria is "quite strong"...hmmm!!

Ole Dick is right and wrong...right, both parties would have to agree but wrong, considering it never made it that far...the company's stance on MEPF's and the lack of leverage by the drivers to force the issue made their proposal DOA...and they did attempt to "slip it in" by not informing the bargaining unit as a whole of their intentions. I'm guessing most would've advised against it and perhaps they could've garnered more support had they went the route taken by EPH, or even SBR...just sayin'

NOTE: Hopefully this will show the realism of the booklet that exist and put to rest any doubts of photoshopping...


CYoK88L.jpg


aPaUESI.jpg


NFiY6c0.jpg

Settle down Red. In your desperation for a "gotcha moment", you are twisting/spinning quite a tale.

1st) I was never one who had ANY concern about the funding status of the current Pension plan. In fact quite the opposite. Go back and look, then move along.

2) I'll concede, during the debate about the Teamsters needing FXFE drivers to shore up their "failing" pension (context here=CSPF) I did say no one would want that, the company wouldn't want it, etc. Still true in that context. Western Conference is a totally different animal. If you think this leaked info proves me wrong on the whole concept, I'm good with that. I certainly didn't see it coming.

You do realize it's quite a different matter for a single center going it alone, right. Even four. FedEx certainly was able to use a strategy in this case, that would not have worked in another scenario, right?

Now, rather than call it a dumb idea, I tried to consider the reasoning. An improved pension was very high on many driver's list of requirements. They tried to find a way to deliver. I can't fault them for that. It's an idea with some merit. Also, the fact that The Western Conference fund is well funded, makes it worth considering, under their challenging circumstances.

I had no inside scoop on the negotiations, which is why I can speculate as to the thinking involved. If I did have inside knowledge, I certainly wouldn't be leaking it...
 
Last edited:
I bet Tom can quote Debs.....

Tom is Dick. Dick is Tom. Dick can quote Debs.

"You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands."

Eugene V. Debs
 
Tom is Dick. Dick is Tom. Dick can quote Debs.

"You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands."

Eugene V. Debs
And all the time I thought you were talking about (Little Debbie)
 
Ask and you shall receive, but let's first remind the class of what was said for the last three years...

• "we would never propose a multi-employer pension"

• "as to whether FXFE would be in some sort of multi-employer pension fund. Hoot owl showed (logically) the fallacy in such a theory..."

• "Also, FedEx drivers would never be party to any multi-employer pension..."

• "...there is no way FedEx would agree to nor do the people want to be in a multi-employer pension..."

...just to name a few.

Now, I give you Exhibit A (be sure to read the fine print at the bottom)


Y3PAQCI.jpg


Now we'll move on to Exhibit B...further proof that the pension proposal made was in fact a multi-employer plan...


3kDVigK.jpg


And on to Exhibit C...further proof that there are currently 13 other teamster companies in this particular pension plan...


tXWpk1m.jpg


Let me reiterate that for three years it was said by many that they would never propose a multi-employer pension plan, nor does anyone want to participate in such a plan...yet, that's exactly what happened in CLT, the pension proposal made was in fact a multi-employer pension fund!!
Fyi:
k16mZFh.jpg
 
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism man exploits man. It's six or a half-dozen. They're both corrupt systems. By the way, I'm not really a communist, I just play one on TV! (Truckingboards)
 
Settle down Red. In your desperation for a "gotcha moment", you are twisting/spinning quite a tale.

1st) I was never one who had ANY concern about the funding status of the current Pension plan. In fact quite the opposite. Go back and look, then move along.

2) I'll concede, during the debate about the Teamsters needing FXFE drivers to shore up their "failing" pension (context here=CSPF) I did say no one would want that, the company wouldn't want it, etc. Still true in that context. Western Conference is a totally different animal. If you think this leaked info proves me wrong on the whole concept, I'm good with that. I certainly didn't see it coming.

You do realize it's quite a different matter for a single center going it alone, right. Even four. FedEx certainly was able to use a strategy in this case, that would not have worked in another scenario, right?

Now, rather than call it a dumb idea, I tried to consider the reasoning. An improved pension was very high on many driver's list of requirements. They tried to find a way to deliver. I can't fault them for that. It's an idea with some merit. Also, the fact that The Western Conference fund is well funded, makes it worth considering, under their challenging circumstances.

I had no inside scoop on the negotiations, which is why I can speculate as to the thinking involved. If I did have inside knowledge, I certainly wouldn't be leaking it...
If you read my post as a "gotcha moment" then not only are you sadly mistaken, but you're obviously attempting to deflect which is the oldest trick in the book!!

1) If we take a trip down memory lane we'll see ole Swampy claiming our pension was underfunded by $5 Billion because he wanted to lump all of FedEx Corp's pensions together. Once it was proven that FXFE's pension was funded at 108% by the required criteria (2 year) and at 88% (25 year), he bashed our fund claiming it was underfunded because it stood at 88% instead of 100%...now that the WCPF stands at 90% using the same criteria and it's "quite strong"....again, hmmm...

2) I'll accept your admittance for being wrong but nowhere in your previous post did you mention CSPF. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems I remember the WCPF being brought up...by SAC I think..and you never differentiated between the two. You can claim "intent" all you want but without saying it, you can't expect us to read your mind.

Sure I realized it, what in the hell did you think we've been talking about for the last three years?? There's only been four centers for the last 2.5 years, why would we discuss any other strategy(s)??

It was a dumb idea considering the circumstances and for what was at stake...for their side!! It worked out quite nicely for us though!!

Either you weren't as knowledgeable about the situation as you portrayed or you're playing the "plausible deniability" card...I'm gonna go with the latter, which is a smart decision on your part considering there's two cards left on the table...and soon to be one!!
 
Good info Mud. Red will not be interested in the details. He's more concerned (as noted above) with finding the "gotcha moment". Proof of a super secret and sinister plan to mislead the members. A lot like searching for the elusive and nonexistent Russian collusion. Nothing else matters... :regretful:
Nice attempt at deflecting...again. :1036316054:

Personally, I don't care where the WCPF stands...no, actually I do. I hope everyone involved with the plan enjoys the fruits of their labor and the success that comes along with it!! I hope they all can prosper and enjoy their long deserved retirement one day and not have to wonder if their pension is going to be cut!!
 
Nice attempt at deflecting...again. :1036316054:

Personally, I don't care where the WCPF stands...no, actually I do. I hope everyone involved with the plan enjoys the fruits of their labor and the success that comes along with it!! I hope they all can prosper and enjoy their long deserved retirement one day and not have to wonder if their pension is going to be cut!!

And if Hoffa Jr had any balls, he'd consolidate all 21 Continental US pension plans into one, reduce benefits to existing retirees and future retirees, and in the process save the plan from the failure that is the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Then he'd work with the remaining Unionized carriers before they go bankrupt (which is inevitable) and change the work rules to mirror the non union carriers that have grown like weeds while the union carriers have withered on the vine during deregulation.

Oops. DD, CT and the gang will suffer heart attacks having been exposed to this truth.

Happy Caskets!

ST
 
Please, not the long ago debunked Pension myth again... Dues never go into pension funds. Also, FedEx was never to be involved in any multi-company fund.

You make a good case for your opinion, even if a little over the top for AFTER the CLT election is over, but the Pension argument is and always has been factually incorrect talking points and nothing more.

Just curious, were you here when this whole thing started? When things sucked? When drivers went to the local to seek relief through representation? Or are you just here, after the fact, to tell us how it is, with no understanding of the rest of the story? Real questions.

Welcome to the board, by the way. Your opinions are welcome. But on the facts, especially pension facts, even those who "liked" you posts know better.

:smilie93c peelout:
Swampy here is one of your posts stating Fedex would NEVER be in a multi employer pension fund. Just saying.
 
If you read my post as a "gotcha moment" then not only are you sadly mistaken, but you're obviously attempting to deflect which is the oldest trick in the book!!

1) If we take a trip down memory lane we'll see ole Swampy claiming our pension was underfunded by $5 Billion because he wanted to lump all of FedEx Corp's pensions together. Once it was proven that FXFE's pension was funded at 108% by the required criteria (2 year) and at 88% (25 year), he bashed our fund claiming it was underfunded because it stood at 88% instead of 100%...now that the WCPF stands at 90% using the same criteria and it's "quite strong"....again, hmmm...

2) I'll accept your admittance for being wrong but nowhere in your previous post did you mention CSPF. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems I remember the WCPF being brought up...by SAC I think..and you never differentiated between the two. You can claim "intent" all you want but without saying it, you can't expect us to read your mind.

Sure I realized it, what in the hell did you think we've been talking about for the last three years?? There's only been four centers for the last 2.5 years, why would we discuss any other strategy(s)??

It was a dumb idea considering the circumstances and for what was at stake...for their side!! It worked out quite nicely for us though!!

Either you weren't as knowledgeable about the situation as you portrayed or you're playing the "plausible deniability" card...I'm gonna go with the latter, which is a smart decision on your part considering there's two cards left on the table...and soon to be one!!

Typical FAKE NEWS reporting. Select facts, twisted and applied in an alternate context.

Yes, I showed the information on underfunded status, in reply to those harping or the status of Central States Pension. Yes, I explained what the numbers really mean. NO, I never made the case for FedEx to achieve 100% funding status. Never ever. I did make the case for a better percentage of benefit, comparable to Express who enjoys a 2% higher contribution across the board. I even went on to show the variety of areas 2% could be placed.

Your memory of the conversations seems to be failing you in this discussion. It's easier for me to recall, since I've been consistent.

Yes, WCPF was mentioned briefly and separately and noted to be in excellent shape.

If you are not searching for a gotcha moment, why go on, and on about it?:scratchhead:
 
Swampy here is one of your posts stating Fedex would NEVER be in a multi employer pension fund. Just saying.
you guys would have had to vote yes on a contract. I myself would never vote in a multi employer pension fund. You are arguing something that will not happen or will ever be provable to have happened. Just because it was proposed does not mean you had to accept the contract. Just saying.
 
Red, please explain these two conflicting statements. One yesterday, the other back in Oct.

1) If we take a trip down memory lane we'll see ole Swampy claiming our pension was underfunded by $5 Billion because he wanted to lump all of FedEx Corp's pensions together. Once it was proven that FXFE's pension was funded at 108% by the required criteria (2 year) and at 88% (25 year), he bashed our fund claiming it was underfunded because it stood at 88% instead of 100%...now that the WCPF stands at 90% using the same criteria and it's "quite strong"....again, hmmm...

Redracer3136 said:
...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!!

Seems to be a bit of confusion... Might want to make up your mind.

For the rest of the class, here is some of the fun conversation we had:

http://www.truckingboards.com/bb/threads/the-union-debate-thread.65416/page-621#post-1095205

Quite entertaining :popcorn:
 
Top