HerkyBird

Uncle Sam gives the FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, now ~$82K) to wage-earners who relocate overseas for two reasons: (1) to incentivize them to go overseas and further the business interests of U.S. corporations; and (2) to return to them a share of taxes for services they aren't using while overseas (fire, police, military defense, highways, bridges, etc.). FedEx had to personally guarantee to France and China that income taxes would be paid on our salaries (~40% CDG; ~17% HKG). They aren't putting pilots in HKG as any favor to US -- they did it because the guarantee they would have had to sign if we were in CAN (Guangzhou) was at the rate of ~50%. This is normal, and is a normal cost of doing business overseas for U.S. corporations. However, FDX is going to partially recoup this cost of doing business by keeping a portion of our pay until it reaches the level of what we would be paying had we stayed in our U.S. homes, close to family, friends and the familiar rhythms of life. Do you feel any need to indemnify a thriving Fortune 500 company for ANY of its costs of doing business? I sure don't.

BrownGirls YUM

I think so...but isn't it like in February or something?????

angry tanker

BC has no sense of reality. he thinks he moses delivering the ten commandments or something. i think it is time to go.

as for the loa, it is a hardship for me, so i am voting no. i left the military because i was always sent away. i came to fedex because it was commuter friendly. are you seeing a trend...

Busboy

I wouldn't be surprised, before this vote is over, if we get a letter from Masta Fred.

Simply amazing.

Talk about being on the end of the bell curve. He sounds like he's just hanging on to the end of it, by his fingernails. How can one of our own representatives be so far out of touch with the people he represents? Too many "YES MEN" surrounding him, perhaps? I don't know.

I would certainly hope that management doesn't let emotion get in the way of business. When this LOA is voted down, I would hope they would come back to the table and fix it. Good business.

However, if Bob and Lewis are correct, and the company will not come back...Then, so be it. Open the FDAs under the current CBA. I can live with that. And, so can the overwhelming majority of us that can't bid the FDAs because of this LOA.

ANd, if that's what the company wants to do...Then, when we enter contract negotiations...I suggest we start with what is in Sec. 6 and ADD to it!!! It's not as if we'll be starting from ground zero.

What a dhick!!

TonyC

You missed one, but it was a function of the vBulletin software (that runs this forum) changing the format of the text. As read in your e-mail or on the website, it is more clear.

I'll try to make it look correct here:

I hope that removes any confusion about the number of reasons.






.

mrzog2138

Tony,

How come no one mentions the "BIG ELEPHANT" in the room (STV) when it comes to the propagand e-mails? This is a huge concession (compared to the vehicle already in place for manning foreign domiciles - SIBA) and I am afraid sets a dangerous precedent. The growth in the company is not going to be the MEM-ORL or MEM-ATL legs. It is going to be China, Europe, and eventually India. I am here for at least another 22 years, probably 27 years. I don't want those years filled with even 30-day STV's to HKG, CDG, and eventually probably garden spots like Mumbai or Delhi.

MaxKts

The 3rd reason -"gives up nothing" Give me a break! What do you call SVT.
Being able to force someone to go somewhere for 30+ days against their will is certainly giving up something!!!!!!!!

HerkyBird

Originally posted by PrezBear: << The question that has to be asked is, How much negotiating capital did it take for us to convince the company that Guangzhou was not an acceptable place to live? We will probably never know. I think some allowance and understanding should be afforded to the Negotiating Committee for delivering Hong Kong instead of Guangzhou. >>

WRONG-O!! FedEx had to personally guarantee to France and China that income taxes would be paid on our salaries (~40% CDG; ~17% HKG). They aren't putting pilots in HKG as any favor to US -- they did it because the guarantee they would have had to sign if we were in CAN (Guangzhou) was at the rate of ~50%. In business, if you ever wonder why something was done the way it was ... FOLLOW THE MONEY. You think FDX cares that CAN was the birthplace of SARS and bird flu? Not until they ran the numbers on projected use of sick leave, I guarantee you.

mrzog2138

Also, how come the mantra "We will fix it later" comes from the union. According to BC it sounds like it isn't broke. How much are we going to have to give up in concessions to get rid of STV? Think of how much that saves the company. It isn't going to be easy to get rid of it. And, I think the union drastically underestimates how much it will be used in the two years after HKG and CDG are open.

fedupbusdriver

If you give up STV, you will never get rid of it. There has never been a work rule given up, and then gotten back.