What's new

FedEx Freight | Raise

ltl1 said:
I work at ABF. Coward down NO COST INSURANCE THREW 2023 for entire family. 66cent hr raise into pension every year of contract, 2.15 hr over 5 yr in pay. Also our insurance is platinum plan insurance plan with 250 max out of pocket per year.:lmao::lmao: Also 5 sick,4 personal days per year.
Click to expand...
Wayyyyyyyy better then any non union . The Nons just don’t get it !
 
Purple Hammer said:
Premium increases are only one part of the metric. Other factors should also be taken into consideration such as spousal surcharges, copays for medical, prescriptions, vision care, etc. Also the quality of the care is an issue. The change from VSP to Davis Vision was a definite downward move. Being forced to use Walmart doctors isn’t ideal. And now with no “Out of Network” on the medical we are being forced to choose from an ever smaller pool of caregivers. The list goes on. Fedex is putting more of a percentage of the cost on the employees and also increasing the difficulty for usage. The Connect Your Care Card puts all of the legwork on the employee to submit receipts whereas Anthem used to take care of them being a prime example.
Click to expand...

No argument regarding the impact of all the things you mention upon health care benefits and costs for the individual beyond the premium increases.
Is Fedex putting a higher % of the cost on employees though?
I certainly don't like the increased out of pockets any more than the next guy, but the question i keep asking myself is whether i am getting positive value out my additional premiums or not?

If the overall premium cost of coverage has went up, say, 6k per year over the past 5 years.......am i ahead or behind with my 900/year contribution increase over that same timeframe?

Guess i just see a half full glass.....
 
aflifer said:
No argument regarding the impact of all the things you mention upon health care benefits and costs for the individual beyond the premium increases.
Is Fedex putting a higher % of the cost on employees though?
I certainly don't like the increased out of pockets any more than the next guy, but the question i keep asking myself is whether i am getting positive value out my additional premiums or not?

If the overall premium cost of coverage has went up, say, 6k per year over the past 5 years.......am i ahead or behind with my 900/year contribution increase over that same timeframe?

Guess i just see a half full glass.....
Click to expand...


Those of us with a spouse(who is subject to the surcharge) and family will see a $2000 increase just in this year's premium increase. As well as increased deductables, and decreased coverage.

For a healthy family of 4 who goes to the doctor for just yearly physicals the $2000 in this year's premium increase and surcharges won't even be spent!
 
SwampRatt said:
Shouldn't be too hard to look it up. I do recall, in the past (same time period), there was at least one year with no changes in insurance contributions.

I think the change of course is what's troubling. Reduced benefit & smaller raise, while at the same time margin and actual operating income surges.

Seems like a missed opportunity to reinforce rather than cast doubt.
Click to expand...

Swamp,
The numbers put forth elsewhere in the thread look pretty accurate regarding the premium increases we have seen over the past five years or so.

I responded to Purple Hammer with my thoughts regarding the concept of a reduced benefit.

Maybe i am wrong, but anything that increases the value proposition that i am exchanging for my time and efforts is a positive in my mind. Could that value increase more/faster? Sure, that always has been and always will be the case.

Do you think the increase is based on previous financial performance or would it be based on meeting the financial targets of the company for the upcoming year? Are budgets and forecasts 100% accurate? Not hardly, but they are necessary for responsible planning. What if the overall economy outperforms forecast and our margins end up higher than planned? Seems to me that the AIC is in place as a vehicle to hedge that possibility.

Perceptions are an individual thing and likely arent changed by what anyone else says, but even when i may not share the same one as you, i certainly appreciate your sharing and candor....
 
Jules Winnfield said:
Those of us with a spouse(who is subject to the surcharge) and family will see a $2000 increase just in this year's premium increase. As well as increased deductables, and decreased coverage.

For a healthy family of 4 who goes to the doctor for just yearly physicals the $2000 in this year's premium increase and surcharges won't even be spent!
Click to expand...

You seem to be making the assumption that i dont have a spouse that is subject to the possible surcharge. You would be incorrect.
 
aflifer said:
You seem to be making the assumption that i dont have a spouse that is subject to the possible surcharge. You would be incorrect.
Click to expand...
I assume nothing, my point was that positive value is not likely for a healthy family.
The premium increase, and surcharge(should it apply to your family) will exceed the cost of normal yearly medical care cost for a healthy family.
As a family man, and what many would consider a long time employee of this company, they missed their mark on this one.
Sheridan Garrison knew that if we took care of our people, they'd take care of everything else. This "raise", increase in premium and surcharges, and reduction of coverage is not taking care of our people, in fact it's hurting them.

One must wonder though how the company came to the conclusion that this was the where a surcharge was justified. Much of the increase in insurance spending/costs came after we started offering insurance benefits to part timers. Why are they punishing those of us who don't have time for a part time job because of our hours here, but have a working spouse with $150/mo surcharge...but the part timers who have a full time job elsewhere but take our insurance (because without the surcharge it's reasonably priced) aren't charged a dime more?

I would bet that on average the majority of our part time employees cost more in insurance spending, than my wife who never goes to the doctor.
 
Last edited:
Jules Winnfield said:
I assume nothing, my point was that positive value is not likely for a healthy family.
The premium increase, and surcharge(should it apply to your family) will exceed the cost of normal yearly medical care cost for a healthy family.
As a family man, and what many would consider a long time employee of this company, they missed their mark on this one.
Sheridan Garrison knew that if we took care of our people, they'd take care of everything else. This "raise", increase in premium and surcharges, and reduction of coverage is not taking care of our people, in fact it's hurting them.

One must wonder though how the company came to the conclusion that this was the where a surcharge was justified. Much of the increase in insurance spending/costs came after we started offering insurance benefits to part timers. Why are they punishing those of us who don't have time for a part time job because of our hours here, but have a working spouse with $150/mo surcharge...but the part timers who have a full time job elsewhere but take our insurance (because for a single guy it's cheap) aren't charged a dime more?

I would bet that on average the majority of our part time employees cost more in insurance spending, than my wife who never goes to the doctor.
Click to expand...

Even for those that may end up paying the surcharge, based on the overall increase numbers that are out there, it would still be double the value for the money.
If only health insurance worked like car insurance and was based on actuarial tables specific to a certain individual/family level of risk, it sounds like we would both be happy. I have many of the same thoughts as you. However, i also have to ask myself that if paying a couple hundred bucks a month is a better deal than what my spouse's employer offers for their single coverage, does fedex deserve the bulk of my anger or should their employer share some of that responsibility?
Most all of our competitors have either a spouse surcharge or won't even offer coverage to a spouse at any cost, which they have had in place for years. I am all for not jumping on that bandwagon, but also understand why doing so might be the best line of defense.
 
aflifer said:
Swamp,
The numbers put forth elsewhere in the thread look pretty accurate regarding the premium increases we have seen over the past five years or so.

I responded to Purple Hammer with my thoughts regarding the concept of a reduced benefit.

Maybe i am wrong, but anything that increases the value proposition that i am exchanging for my time and efforts is a positive in my mind. Could that value increase more/faster? Sure, that always has been and always will be the case.

Do you think the increase is based on previous financial performance or would it be based on meeting the financial targets of the company for the upcoming year? Are budgets and forecasts 100% accurate? Not hardly, but they are necessary for responsible planning. What if the overall economy outperforms forecast and our margins end up higher than planned? Seems to me that the AIC is in place as a vehicle to hedge that possibility.

Perceptions are an individual thing and likely arent changed by what anyone else says, but even when i may not share the same one as you, i certainly appreciate your sharing and candor....
Click to expand...
I understand and agree on perceptions being unlikely to be changed.

I want to "assume positive intent", unless proven otherwise, but is seems that we are drifting back to the time when the (relatively new) decision makers attempted to capitalize on past performances, when justifying reductions, unless those past performances are stellar (like they are now). Then we switch the narrative to projections, enterprise wide metrics, and uncertainty. Having it both ways, if you will.

My opinion is that we are taking advantage of our "fully staffed" status, while we can. And new decision makers want to have an impact. They are certainly doing that, IMHO.

I agree that the bonus is where we can participate, to some degree, in the DOUBLE DIGIT margins, if they remain consistent.
 
I've always been against a union but I would seriously consider it now. Maybe then I'll also get to jump 20 spots because my company seniority would mean something as well. Got a bunch of guys above me that only have less than 2 years in. 1 in particular who was only with the company for a month and a half only to be gone for 8 months and somehow gets to come back and keep his driver board seniority. You could say I as well as alot of others are not happy with that. We did complain but was told it was all legitimate. So again I'm not going out of my way but if there was ever a vote I would seriously consider it.
 
SwampRatt said:
I understand and agree on perceptions being unlikely to be changed.

I want to "assume positive intent", unless proven otherwise, but is seems that we are drifting back to the time when the (relatively new) decision makers attempted to capitalize on past performances, when justifying reductions, unless those past performances are stellar (like they are now). Then we switch the narrative to projections, enterprise wide metrics, and uncertainty. Having it both ways, if you will.

My opinion is that we are taking advantage of our "fully staffed" status, while we can. And new decision makers want to have an impact. They are certainly doing that, IMHO.

I agree that the bonus is where we can participate, to some degree, in the DOUBLE DIGIT margins, if they remain consistent.
Click to expand...
They will take that away next,especially if we stay in the low operating ratios.
 
Maybe everyone in this thread needs to assume positive intent.

The global economy is rough right now with freight volumes. Heck, there is even a dedicated thread for low freight volumes. Projected growth is stagnant for FY20 due to China and tariffs.

Healthcare, do we even need talk about the costs skyrocketing each year? not only for FedEx but for majority of companies.

Why would FedEx give everyone a huge raise when the future forecast looks bleak? The forecast looked great last year so everyone got their big raise at least 6 months in advance. But this year, it’s the opposite.

So I question you. Why don’t you assume positive intent with what the company is doing to remain the best in the business - and do what is best for the company? Let’s quit looking at it on an individual level and start looking at it on a large scale.
 
George Knighton said:
Maybe everyone in this thread needs to assume positive intent.

The global economy is rough right now with freight volumes. Heck, there is even a dedicated thread for low freight volumes. Projected growth is stagnant for FY20 due to China and tariffs.

Healthcare, do we even need talk about the costs skyrocketing each year? not only for FedEx but for majority of companies.

Why would FedEx give everyone a huge raise when the future forecast looks bleak? The forecast looked great last year so everyone got their big raise at least 6 months in advance. But this year, it’s the opposite.

So I question you. Why don’t you assume positive intent with what the company is doing to remain the best in the business - and do what is best for the company? Let’s quit looking at it on an individual level and start looking at it on a large scale.
Click to expand...
Wrong again Georgia. We got the raise 6 months early due to the corporate tax cut windfall.
 
Boats n hoes said:
I've always been against a union but I would seriously consider it now. Maybe then I'll also get to jump 20 spots because my company seniority would mean something as well. Got a bunch of guys above me that only have less than 2 years in. 1 in particular who was only with the company for a month and a half only to be gone for 8 months and somehow gets to come back and keep his driver board seniority. You could say I as well as alot of others are not happy with that. We did complain but was told it was all legitimate. So again I'm not going out of my way but if there was ever a vote I would seriously consider it.
Click to expand...
Slow your roll bro...when the whole U thang started in CLT back in 2014, seniority was one of the first things I asked about and I was given the Nancy Pelosi answer of “first we have to get it in before we see what we can get”...that was my first major red flag!!
Then I started polling those that were for a U about a “one year and a day rule” like most U companies recognize and the overwhelming majority of drivers here said HELL TO THE NO!!
That’s when I realized that “the brotherhood” they were promoting was actually about “the selfhood”!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top