What's new

FedEx Freight | Where would you put compensation gains?

And now for the "outside the box" approach.

Since lots of people have differing priorities, what if we could have individual options? Stay with me for just a minute...

What if each year you could choose where you would like that increase to go? Some may choose for all to go into wages. Others may choose all go into retirement, insurance, vacation, etc. Some may choose a mix of the above.

Before anyone says we can't do it that way, think about it. Why NOT?

Today's computerized payroll system would make all of these calculations automatic. Each individual could allocate his/her own compensation increase by area of preference.

First we would need to have parity within the company, as well as the same benefits, as a starting point, to be fair. Then it would only be a mater of establishing a baseline, going forward. You would have a known total compensation value. Your percentage of increase would be based off of that. Which area received the increases (as a percentage) would be a matter of your own choice, presumably within certain parameters (Gov. mandates/insurance come to mind)

Over time your individual package might look quite different from your coworkers', but it would be tailored to you own preferences, not someone else's.

The good thing, a 2% increase would really be a 2% increase (on total compensation), rather than a 2% increase only on the wage portion of your compensation package.

The only bad part, it would make comparative analysis quite difficult IMHO.

Yeah, I'm putting it out there, let's rip it to shreds...:36:
 
Last edited:
SwampRatt said:
Agreed, but it's not a bad option to have... Tax free return, ability to withdraw (contributed amount) without penalty...
Click to expand...

My concern is primarily in regards to the tax rate, future tax law and inflation. Between Fed and State my tax rate is 42.3%. Not only am I excluded from contributing to a ROTH, I am fairly certain that, at retirement, my tax rate won't be anywhere near that percentage. I will invest "tax-deferred" now and take my chances that my tax rate later won't be as ridiculously high.
 
SwampRatt said:
First we would need to have parity within the company, as well as the same benefits, as a starting point, to be fair.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that would certainly depend on how you define parity. Afford the same standard of living or the same hourly rate/salary regardless of what standard of living that provides?

The guy in Mississippi making $60K year and the guy in SF Bay making $60K year have very, very different standards of living. Is that parity?
 
EX396 said:
To be fair, that would certainly depend on how you define parity. Afford the same standard of living or the same hourly rate/salary regardless of what standard of living that provides?

The guy in Mississippi making $60K year and the guy in SF Bay making $60K year have very, very different standards of living. Is that parity?
Click to expand...
Agreed

By parity, I mean relative to location. Similar competitive status, on a geographic market basis. A correct GPD, specifically. Exactly what "most" want.

It would be best to achieve that prior to implementing such a system, but it is NOT a deal breaker. Adjustments could and would occur, over time, as markets change. Let's not get into a one national scale debate here. This topic is not for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ump
As long as we are on the same page regarding a "one national scale" there won't be any debate from me ;)

Just put it all in the wage. Easiest and therefore, least expensive, for HR to implement. The most freedom for the employee to change what they do with that increase with zero effort. You wan't more vacation? Save for it so you still get "paid" while not working. Better retirement? Invest that money in your own retirement. Better insurance? Put it aside so that your deductibles/co-pays are taken care of. Want it in the forms of earnings so you can buy that new motorcycle? Save it for that.

Freedom and personal responsibility. How can that be a bad thing?
 
EX396 said:
As long as we are on the same page regarding a "one national scale" there won't be any debate from me ;)

Just put it all in the wage. Easiest and therefore, least expensive, for HR to implement. The most freedom for the employee to change what they do with that increase with zero effort. You wan't more vacation? Save for it so you still get "paid" while not working. Better retirement? Invest that money in your own retirement. Better insurance? Put it aside so that your deductibles/co-pays are taken care of. Want it in the forms of earnings so you can buy that new motorcycle? Save it for that.

Freedom and personal responsibility. How can that be a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Oh, I think you know from past discussions, I absolutely agree. The only exception being a better match on the 401K. As you noted earlier, a 5.5% cost to the Company nets us 6%, or thereabout. Anywhere that kind of situation exists, would be worth considering, IMHO.
 
SwampRatt said:
I do like the option of more choices. One would think that there would be no cost in having more options.

I lean toward maximum wage, perhaps due to bottom GPD status, and a correction in the vacation calculation. I do think areas where the gain is higher than the cost (401k) should be next.

Also the addition of a ROTH IRA option would be great and cost the Co almost nothing.
Click to expand...
The credit union offers a roth.
 
EX396 said:
As long as we are on the same page regarding a "one national scale" there won't be any debate from me ;)

Just put it all in the wage. Easiest and therefore, least expensive, for HR to implement. The most freedom for the employee to change what they do with that increase with zero effort. You wan't more vacation? Save for it so you still get "paid" while not working. Better retirement? Invest that money in your own retirement. Better insurance? Put it aside so that your deductibles/co-pays are taken care of. Want it in the forms of earnings so you can buy that new motorcycle? Save it for that.

Freedom and personal responsibility. How can that be a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Even without an increase to our compensation package, isn't this exactly what we have now??
Taking into account what we make now at our current GDP wage scale, every driver "should" be able to take advantage of every option you've mentioned. The problem lies with your last sentence...some don't understand the whole "personal responsibility" thing and I doubt any increase to our compensation package in terms of everything into wages will change this...although it will make it easier for those of us who do!!
 
Last edited:
Redracer3136 said:
Even without an increase to our compensation package, isn't this exactly what we have now??
Taking into account what we make now at our current GDP wage scale, every driver "should" be able to take advantage of every option you've mentioned. The problem lies with your last sentence...some don't understand the whole "personal responsibility" thing and I doubt any increase to our compensation package in terms of everything into wages will change this...although it will make it easier for those of us who do!!
Click to expand...

Wrong not everyone is irresponsible. If wages haven't kept up in some markets where the cost of living has raised it makes it harder to save has nothing to do with being irresponsible. This goes back to our flawed gpd system which this thread is not about.
 
I don't see it happening. While it is a good idea and effort on your part Swamp this company would not spend the time or money to offer something like this. Way too many variables. Let's say I wanted to beef up my company 401k match. At what % will be offered to me compared to a pay increase? If the pay increase offered is 3% each year would the 401k match be the same or would it need to be calculated to a different %? The same could be said about health care plans. How much could I reduce the deductible or increase coverage vs the 3%.

EX396 points out that we should be allowed to save or direct our money where we want improvements and that has it's merits. The problem is if I want to get a good return on my pre-tax contributions to 401k through Vanguard it ain't happening right now with only 8 funds to chose from. Sure I can take my already taxed money and invest it in a plan not offered, as I already do with another company and not at Vanguard. I am getting doubled taxed so that is not be best situation but I am still getting much better returns to make up for it. It comes down to being responsible for your future. I believe too many will make a bad decision if given the option to pick where they want a yearly increase to go. Of course that will fall on them but eventually you will get a "but I didn't know" years down the road and possibly opening up a whole new can of worms.

At the end of the day the company could do much better for all of our benefits but I believe we are headed into financially troubled waters. The next year plus will define where we go from here as a sound company.
 
Redracer3136 said:
Even without an increase to our compensation package, isn't this exactly what we have now??
Taking into account what we make now at our current GDP wage scale, every driver "should" be able to take advantage of every option you've mentioned. The problem lies with your last sentence...some don't understand the whole "personal responsibility" thing and I doubt any increase to our compensation package in terms of everything into wages will change this...although it will make it easier for those of us who do!!
Click to expand...
parking lot is full F-350's and dodge challengers. Little extra scratch and they could get his and her matching Harleys! The ones that will save it already are and the ones who can't will buy new tire and wheels for the side by side.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
Wrong not everyone is irresponsible. If wages haven't kept up in some markets where the cost of living has raised it makes it harder to save has nothing to do with being irresponsible. This goes back to our flawed gpd system which this thread is not about.
Click to expand...
What in the world are you talking about? First off he said "some" not all. Second, I don't care where you live, if your can't pay your bills that's on you not your employer. If your not making enough there are two ways to solve it. Spend less or get a better paying job. Stop blaming the GPD for your over spending. My guess is the money you make is better then just about any other non-skilled job you can find. Stop buying a new car every two years and put that money into you retirement.
 
SwampRatt said:
And now for the "outside the box" approach.

Since lots of people have differing priorities, what if we could have individual options? Stay with me for just a minute...

What if each year you could choose where you would like that increase to go? Some may choose for all to go into wages. Others may choose all go into retirement, insurance, vacation, etc. Some may choose a mix of the above.

Before anyone says we can't do it that way, think about it. Why NOT?

Today's computerized payroll system would make all of these calculations automatic. Each individual could allocate his/her own compensation increase by area of preference.

First we would need to have parity within the company, as well as the same benefits, as a starting point, to be fair. Then it would only be a mater of establishing a baseline, going forward. You would have a known total compensation value. Your percentage of increase would be based off of that. Which area received the increases (as a percentage) would be a matter of your own choice, presumably within certain parameters (Gov. mandates/insurance come to mind)

Over time your individual package might look quite different from your coworkers', but it would be tailored to you own preferences, not someone else's.

The good thing, a 2% increase would really be a 2% increase (on total compensation), rather than a 2% increase only on the wage portion of your compensation package.

The only bad part, it would make comparative analysis quite difficult IMHO.

Yeah, I'm putting it out there, let's rip it to shreds...:36:
Click to expand...

Won't happen. Even the post office has regional pay scales.

Next issue, we have regional tax scales. So how do you claim we're all being paid the same, when I'm paying a higher tax rate? Now, of course, I'll get told I'm stupid for living where I live. Yet FxF needs me in my location. What do you expect? We quit delivering in high cost areas and only employ folks where it's cheap to live?

Whether we like it or not, regional pay scales are here forever. It's the trend in the industry.

And next, folks who defer money to take home wages will cry that those who are deferring money to retirement are being paid unfairly because of the tax breaks.

No matter what the company does, some a-hole some where will cry. Grow up folks. We all make decisions. If you decide to live where the cost of living is way cheaper than where I live, you made a conscious choice to receive less per hour and per mile.

Next thing you know, folks will be whining about California drivers being on the clock instead of mileage, since hourly pays way more...

Yes, the hourly rate is working out better for the drivers, and for the company.

ST
 
silent trucker said:
Won't happen. Even the post office has regional pay scales.

Next issue, we have regional tax scales. So how do you claim we're all being paid the same, when I'm paying a higher tax rate? Now, of course, I'll get told I'm stupid for living where I live. Yet FxF needs me in my location. What do you expect? We quit delivering in high cost areas and only employ folks where it's cheap to live?

Whether we like it or not, regional pay scales are here forever. It's the trend in the industry.

And next, folks who defer money to take home wages will cry that those who are deferring money to retirement are being paid unfairly because of the tax breaks.

No matter what the company does, some a-hole some where will cry. Grow up folks. We all make decisions. If you decide to live where the cost of living is way cheaper than where I live, you made a conscious choice to receive less per hour and per mile.

Next thing you know, folks will be whining about California drivers being on the clock instead of mileage, since hourly pays way more...

Yes, the hourly rate is working out better for the drivers, and for the company.

ST
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the GPD is not based on cost of living it has been proven in the other thread it's based on retention being the biggest factor. Cost of living being is only a small factor in the equation.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
I'm sorry but the GPD is not based on cost of living it has been proven in the other thread it's based on retention being the biggest factor. Cost of living being is only a small factor in the equation.
Click to expand...

And your point is? The biggest issue in retention is the ability to pay your bills. If the cost of living is extremely high, the wages need to match that in order to retain drivers. DUH! What else do you need explained today?
 
silent trucker said:
And your point is? The biggest issue in retention is the ability to pay your bills. If the cost of living is extremely high, the wages need to match that in order to retain drivers. DUH! What else do you need explained today?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm trying to explain to you our wages don't always coincide with cost of living. So some centers who have stable people who don't hop from job to job get punished for staying at fed ex. Duh what else do you need explained today?
 
Crazy Trucker said:
That's what I'm trying to explain to you our wages don't always coincide with cost of living. So some centers who have stable people who don't hop from job to job get punished for staying at fed ex. Duh what else do you need explained today?
Click to expand...

Congratulations! you actually made a valid point for once! In my domicile, we have 55 drivers with an average of 25 years seniority. We do get punished for not moving, even though we're at top scale of $27.33. If one of our drivers quits or goes out on disability, the freight doesn't move. So how do figure to fix this? Truckload carriers demand their hires live within 50 miles of some Podunk location. Why? So they don't have to pay a regional pay scale. What else do you need explained today?
 
silent trucker said:
Congratulations! you actually made a valid point for once! In my domicile, we have 55 drivers with an average of 25 years seniority. We do get punished for not moving, even though we're at top scale of $27.33. If one of our drivers quits or goes out on disability, the freight doesn't move. So how do figure to fix this? Truckload carriers demand their hires live within 50 miles of some Podunk location. Why? So they don't have to pay a regional pay scale. What else do you need explained today?
Click to expand...

If your at top pay scale how is your center being punished???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top