FedEx TA Pay Review
09-11-2006 | 06:50 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
FedEx TA Pay Review
I'm not sure how many have rooted through the new TA'd contract, but here's a sampling of the Pay Cornerstone:
Under the old contract, not considering seat movement or longevity increases, the actual pay increases worked out to 3.3% per year.
Under the TA'd contract, same considerations, the actual pay increases work out to be 3.5% from Jun04 to Oct06 (to get the 9% "raise"), then 3.0% per year after that.
We actually LOSE money during years 3 and 4 under the new system.
For pay purposes, we would have been AHEAD OF THE GAME to have simply asked the company to extend the previous contract's pay increase provisions for six more years.
The "Signing Bonus" works out to just over 3.3% per year pay increases during the interim between contracts, not even the 3.5% used to get to our 9% "raise"
In Jun04, if the company had offered a 3.3% raise yearly for 29 months followed by a 3% raise yearly for 4 more years, would we have taken it? As far as the Pay Cornerstone issue goes, we have, at best, run in place. I can find no quantifiable difference between what the TA contains and what we would have had just extending the previous contract. I'd be HAPPY to have someone check my math and prove me wrong...
Mike
Under the old contract, not considering seat movement or longevity increases, the actual pay increases worked out to 3.3% per year.
Under the TA'd contract, same considerations, the actual pay increases work out to be 3.5% from Jun04 to Oct06 (to get the 9% "raise"), then 3.0% per year after that.
We actually LOSE money during years 3 and 4 under the new system.
For pay purposes, we would have been AHEAD OF THE GAME to have simply asked the company to extend the previous contract's pay increase provisions for six more years.
The "Signing Bonus" works out to just over 3.3% per year pay increases during the interim between contracts, not even the 3.5% used to get to our 9% "raise"
In Jun04, if the company had offered a 3.3% raise yearly for 29 months followed by a 3% raise yearly for 4 more years, would we have taken it? As far as the Pay Cornerstone issue goes, we have, at best, run in place. I can find no quantifiable difference between what the TA contains and what we would have had just extending the previous contract. I'd be HAPPY to have someone check my math and prove me wrong...
Mike
..hey bro...
09-11-2006 | 07:14 AM
#3
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Trust me, I'm from the government...
Liars figure and figures lie... I worked the numbers for hours and have checked and rechecked my work. The old contract gave us a 3.3% annual (equivalent) raise. New TA works out to less than that after year two... I really want to make the meeting on Tues, but I'm worried my voice would be lost in the wilderness.
09-11-2006 | 07:32 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Good Question
No, I didn't factor in any B Fund improvements as those fall under Retirement and are not part of our Pay Cornerstone, in my opinion. I looked at where we ended up with the new TA based on our old contract and compared it with where we would have been had the old contract simply increased its nominal raises every 18 months. It ended up being a long equation, but it works every time I apply it, no matter what seat or year group. Just under 3.3% annual increases under the new TA (including "Signing Bonus") from Jun04 to the expiration of the proposed contract. At least the old contract gave us the FULL 3.3% per year....
09-11-2006 | 08:49 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
From: MD11 F/O
Cornerstone?
I'm not sure how many have rooted through the new TA'd contract, but here's a sampling of the Pay Cornerstone:
Under the old contract, not considering seat movement or longevity increases, the actual pay increases worked out to 3.3% per year.
Under the TA'd contract, same considerations, the actual pay increases work out to be 3.5% from Jun04 to Oct06 (to get the 9% "raise"), then 3.0% per year after that.
We actually LOSE money during years 3 and 4 under the new system.
For pay purposes, we would have been AHEAD OF THE GAME to have simply asked the company to extend the previous contract's pay increase provisions for six more years.
The "Signing Bonus" works out to just over 3.3% per year pay increases during the interim between contracts, not even the 3.5% used to get to our 9% "raise"
In Jun04, if the company had offered a 3.3% raise yearly for 29 months followed by a 3% raise yearly for 4 more years, would we have taken it? As far as the Pay Cornerstone issue goes, we have, at best, run in place. I can find no quantifiable difference between what the TA contains and what we would have had just extending the previous contract. I'd be HAPPY to have someone check my math and prove me wrong...
Mike
Under the old contract, not considering seat movement or longevity increases, the actual pay increases worked out to 3.3% per year.
Under the TA'd contract, same considerations, the actual pay increases work out to be 3.5% from Jun04 to Oct06 (to get the 9% "raise"), then 3.0% per year after that.
We actually LOSE money during years 3 and 4 under the new system.
For pay purposes, we would have been AHEAD OF THE GAME to have simply asked the company to extend the previous contract's pay increase provisions for six more years.
The "Signing Bonus" works out to just over 3.3% per year pay increases during the interim between contracts, not even the 3.5% used to get to our 9% "raise"
In Jun04, if the company had offered a 3.3% raise yearly for 29 months followed by a 3% raise yearly for 4 more years, would we have taken it? As far as the Pay Cornerstone issue goes, we have, at best, run in place. I can find no quantifiable difference between what the TA contains and what we would have had just extending the previous contract. I'd be HAPPY to have someone check my math and prove me wrong...
Mike
09-11-2006 | 09:22 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 0
09-11-2006 | 09:35 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: Bench Warmer
I try not to respond to these things but...
For the individuals that are not happy with the pay figures here is my personal take...
If you are upset with the numbers now...why not back in OCT 05 when we saw what we were asking for...they are about the same.
You can ALWAYS fight for more pay...maybe next time...my source told me that the company will be going after vacation in 2010...so maybe you can trade that for a huge pay raise.
If we didn't nail down Scope and Health Care now...they would have been out of control next time around.
And work rules. Its a negotiation...you have to expect to get some but not all of what you are asking for UNLESS...you want to take it to a strike and force them to hand it over. Just as much as the company doesn't want to strike and our customers don't want us to strike, I can't think of many pilots that would want for 2-3% and some work rules...
I have read the TA...
If you are upset with the numbers now...why not back in OCT 05 when we saw what we were asking for...they are about the same.
You can ALWAYS fight for more pay...maybe next time...my source told me that the company will be going after vacation in 2010...so maybe you can trade that for a huge pay raise.
If we didn't nail down Scope and Health Care now...they would have been out of control next time around.
And work rules. Its a negotiation...you have to expect to get some but not all of what you are asking for UNLESS...you want to take it to a strike and force them to hand it over. Just as much as the company doesn't want to strike and our customers don't want us to strike, I can't think of many pilots that would want for 2-3% and some work rules...
I have read the TA...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
