Are you kidding me?
12-28-2007, 05:07 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 77
So can we take this from the FCIF; that the new bid will allow the over-age 60 flight engineers to now bid fill some captain positions awarded in the previous bid to the younger guys? Good job age 60-65 flight engineers... here is at least part of the bid you were wanting. This should improve morale even more!
12-28-2007, 05:34 PM
#22
Thx Age 65
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11CAP
Posts: 1,041
Here's my take.
Company states it is over manned. They cancel all upgrades besides the FDA. They also publicly state that a Vacancy is required for a over 60 guy to come back to the front.
Seems to me they are trying to politlely show the Herpes that they are stuck in the back unless they want to bid an FDA.
One can only hope the herpes take the hint.
Company states it is over manned. They cancel all upgrades besides the FDA. They also publicly state that a Vacancy is required for a over 60 guy to come back to the front.
Seems to me they are trying to politlely show the Herpes that they are stuck in the back unless they want to bid an FDA.
One can only hope the herpes take the hint.
12-28-2007, 06:26 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Osmosis
So can we take this from the FCIF; that the new bid will allow the over-age 60 flight engineers to now bid fill some captain positions awarded in the previous bid to the younger guys? Good job age 60-65 flight engineers... here is at least part of the bid you were wanting. This should improve morale even more!
I don't think that is correct. I think they were going to open up some more Capt slots over there. They did not cancel the FDA awards.
12-28-2007, 08:14 PM
#26
Trust but Verify!!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"I don't think that is correct. I think they were going to open up some more Capt slots over there. They did not cancel the FDA awards."
I think what he is trying to say is that if a pilot held a LAX or ANC award due to a primary or secondary vacancy on the last bid, unless it was associated with the SFS excess bid, it has been cancelled and now may be filled on the next bid by any retread that bids it and is senior enough to hold it. Of course, those seats have to open back up again. It is correct that those holding those awards that were cancelled can now lose those slots to retreads if they open back up next bid. Will they open back up? What about the 757 MEM seats? Are they cancelled as well? Stay tuned to to As the Bone Job Turns starring DW, FH and their merry band of retreads!!!
I think what he is trying to say is that if a pilot held a LAX or ANC award due to a primary or secondary vacancy on the last bid, unless it was associated with the SFS excess bid, it has been cancelled and now may be filled on the next bid by any retread that bids it and is senior enough to hold it. Of course, those seats have to open back up again. It is correct that those holding those awards that were cancelled can now lose those slots to retreads if they open back up next bid. Will they open back up? What about the 757 MEM seats? Are they cancelled as well? Stay tuned to to As the Bone Job Turns starring DW, FH and their merry band of retreads!!!
12-28-2007, 10:45 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11
Posts: 395
Wow! It's amazing what can happen in the time it takes to cross an ocean.
Looks like the Age 60 "raw deal" will have IMMEDIATE ramifications to mid and junior pay, not just loss of pay from a delay in upgrade. So now we're not just overmanned slightly, but significantly. Thanks ALPA. Keep digging into our pockets!
Looks like the Age 60 "raw deal" will have IMMEDIATE ramifications to mid and junior pay, not just loss of pay from a delay in upgrade. So now we're not just overmanned slightly, but significantly. Thanks ALPA. Keep digging into our pockets!
12-28-2007, 11:18 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 146
The gloom and doom about being overmanned is just an excuse to cancel the bid and redo it based on the new over 60 rule. From the company's perspective the just want to get the guys in a seat where they are working, not slow rolling training, having elective shoulder surgery, etc. If FedEx was really overmanned they wouldn't use reserve pilots so much and they would be begging guys to accept military instead of calling commanders to change, move, or cancel military duty. It's purely a move to get old guys back in front seats. They won't cancel the hard to fill FDA positions that nobody wants, and will open up the other seats based on the new reality of the 65 rule.
I was glad the bid closed prior to the rule change. I'm still mad at the union for an incomplete LOA, but now I'm mad at the company for canceling the bid. I would have liked to see the over 60 crowd have to wait over a year for a bid to be able to move back up front. If the FCIF had said the previous bid stands and we don't anticipate another bid for over a year then many of those hanging around would have left since it would have taken too long to move back up front. I see the latest FCIF as a way for the over 60 crowd to be able to bid back up front.
The real gloom and doom is the court hit that FedEx took. $319 million in back taxes and fines for 2002 alone. When you add in the subsequent years, repaying the benefits and truck maintenance perfomed by former 'independent contractors" this will end up costing FedEx over a Billion dollars easy. That's going to leave a mark.
I was glad the bid closed prior to the rule change. I'm still mad at the union for an incomplete LOA, but now I'm mad at the company for canceling the bid. I would have liked to see the over 60 crowd have to wait over a year for a bid to be able to move back up front. If the FCIF had said the previous bid stands and we don't anticipate another bid for over a year then many of those hanging around would have left since it would have taken too long to move back up front. I see the latest FCIF as a way for the over 60 crowd to be able to bid back up front.
The real gloom and doom is the court hit that FedEx took. $319 million in back taxes and fines for 2002 alone. When you add in the subsequent years, repaying the benefits and truck maintenance perfomed by former 'independent contractors" this will end up costing FedEx over a Billion dollars easy. That's going to leave a mark.
Last edited by Wild Bill; 12-28-2007 at 11:36 PM.
12-28-2007, 11:31 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 146
Lawyers for Drivers Say FedEx May Owe $1 Billion
Lawyers for Drivers Say FedEx May Owe $1 Billion in Back Taxes in Wake of IRS Ruling IRS fines company $319 Million; joins others in finding drivers are employees, not contractors
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Internal Revenue Service delivered the latest massive blow -- which could wind up costing upwards of $1 billion -- to FedEx's scheme of misclassifying thousands of Ground and Home Delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, lawyers for the drivers said today.
FedEx disclosed the IRS decision, including the $319 million levy in fines and penalties, in its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It also revealed that while the decision only involves the tax year 2002, the IRS is looking at subsequent tax years. It is likely that the IRS assessment will top $1 billion after more recent years are added to the 2002 tally. The IRS ruling came during a week in which the Massachusetts Attorney General issued an opinion stating that FedEx ground/home delivery drivers in that state should be reclassified as employees and fined the company $190,000 in penalties. Its investigation continues.
FedEx's practice of avoiding tax liabilities and foisting its operating costs onto its drivers has been under continuous attack at the state and federal level for several years. The IRS and the Massachusetts rulings are just the latest.
Class-actions lawsuits by drivers who have been victimized by FedEx's practices have been multiplying across the country. Over 50 suits have been consolidated already in federal court in South Bend, Indiana. Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., a lead counsel for the drivers in these actions said, "The IRS decision is another milestone in this long battle. It is wholly justified and totally consistent with every thorough investigation of the FedEx "independent contractor" model. The IRS action is further validation that FedEx has been perpetuating a sham to conceal the fact that the drivers are actually FedEx employees who have been exploited to the huge monetary benefit of the company."
Faris added, "The drivers have been shouldering FedEx's tax burden for far too long. We hope that the government continues to vigorously pursue justice for the drivers, all American taxpayers and responsible employers."
The continuing spate of legal setbacks for FedEx accelerated last month when the California Supreme Court had the final word in the landmark Estrada vs. FedEx Ground case, upholding the Appeals Court finding that the drivers were misclassified and setting the stage for reimbursement of significant, wide-ranging business expenses to the drivers. In its oft-quoted opinion, the appellate court said, "The essence of the trial court's statement of decision is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck."
Consistent with rulings by the IRS, Massachusetts and California are a growing number of state and federal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, which have found the drivers to be employees and not independent contractors, as FedEx continues to argue.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Internal Revenue Service delivered the latest massive blow -- which could wind up costing upwards of $1 billion -- to FedEx's scheme of misclassifying thousands of Ground and Home Delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, lawyers for the drivers said today.
FedEx disclosed the IRS decision, including the $319 million levy in fines and penalties, in its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It also revealed that while the decision only involves the tax year 2002, the IRS is looking at subsequent tax years. It is likely that the IRS assessment will top $1 billion after more recent years are added to the 2002 tally. The IRS ruling came during a week in which the Massachusetts Attorney General issued an opinion stating that FedEx ground/home delivery drivers in that state should be reclassified as employees and fined the company $190,000 in penalties. Its investigation continues.
FedEx's practice of avoiding tax liabilities and foisting its operating costs onto its drivers has been under continuous attack at the state and federal level for several years. The IRS and the Massachusetts rulings are just the latest.
Class-actions lawsuits by drivers who have been victimized by FedEx's practices have been multiplying across the country. Over 50 suits have been consolidated already in federal court in South Bend, Indiana. Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., a lead counsel for the drivers in these actions said, "The IRS decision is another milestone in this long battle. It is wholly justified and totally consistent with every thorough investigation of the FedEx "independent contractor" model. The IRS action is further validation that FedEx has been perpetuating a sham to conceal the fact that the drivers are actually FedEx employees who have been exploited to the huge monetary benefit of the company."
Faris added, "The drivers have been shouldering FedEx's tax burden for far too long. We hope that the government continues to vigorously pursue justice for the drivers, all American taxpayers and responsible employers."
The continuing spate of legal setbacks for FedEx accelerated last month when the California Supreme Court had the final word in the landmark Estrada vs. FedEx Ground case, upholding the Appeals Court finding that the drivers were misclassified and setting the stage for reimbursement of significant, wide-ranging business expenses to the drivers. In its oft-quoted opinion, the appellate court said, "The essence of the trial court's statement of decision is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck."
Consistent with rulings by the IRS, Massachusetts and California are a growing number of state and federal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, which have found the drivers to be employees and not independent contractors, as FedEx continues to argue.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
