FDX- Council 7 Message 10/6/14
10-07-2014, 04:04 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by Doogs
Moving from an A plan to a B plan isn't necessarily concessionary. It depends on the details.
I suggest you read the book Retirement Heist by Ellen Schultz. Retirement Heist - Pension Fraud Book - Ellen Schultz Nothing offered by corporations over the past 30 years have good for the employees. Why don't you just offer to take a 50% pay cut. One could argue that that is not concessionary, depending on the details.
10-07-2014, 04:09 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by FoxHunter
I would hope you can guarantee Congress will not reduce the amount that can be put into it.
I suggest you read the book Retirement Heist by Ellen Schultz. Retirement Heist - Pension Fraud Book - Ellen Schultz Nothing offered by corporations over the past 30 years have good for the employees. Why don't you just offer to take a 50% pay cut. One could argue that that is not concessionary, depending on the details.
I suggest you read the book Retirement Heist by Ellen Schultz. Retirement Heist - Pension Fraud Book - Ellen Schultz Nothing offered by corporations over the past 30 years have good for the employees. Why don't you just offer to take a 50% pay cut. One could argue that that is not concessionary, depending on the details.
10-07-2014, 04:10 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Doogs
I guess you didn't read where I said to think seriously about it.
There is a point where an improved B plan outweighs our current A plan. It doesn't sound like an offer is on the table (it probably isn't even likely) but to suggest that there is no possibility of a B plan being an improvement over our current system is obtuse.
There is a point where an improved B plan outweighs our current A plan. It doesn't sound like an offer is on the table (it probably isn't even likely) but to suggest that there is no possibility of a B plan being an improvement over our current system is obtuse.
For those that want to freeze or trade our Defined Benefit Plan- google immediate annuity. Click on any of the results. Enter how much you'd like to receive in retirement, and your age.
The result will be a 7 figure number ~ $1.7M depending on your age.
How many of you have a 401k portfolio of that magnitude?
You would need well north of 25% in the B fund for more than 20 years to achieve the NPV required to replace that annuitized income.
And that assumes constant growth- averaging 7-8%, for over 20 years. No prolonged bear markets- no years of measly growth. How many of you have avoided all market risk- every year, for 20 years. Maybe if you were in cash, but then you didn't have the 7-8% compounding required- so you'd need even more contribution if you were risk averse.
An all B fund retirement puts all the market risk, systemic risk, and financial management risk on the pilot.
I'm sure you've heard the old saying- "never fly with doctors or invest with pilots"
10-07-2014, 04:16 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by olly
I have said this many times on this forum.
For those that want to freeze or trade our Defined Benefit Plan- google immediate annuity. Click on any of the results. Enter how much you'd like to receive in retirement, and your age.
The result will be a 7 figure number ~ $1.7M depending on your age.
How many of you have a 401k portfolio of that magnitude?
You would need well north of 25% in the B fund for more than 20 years to achieve the NPV required to replace that annuitized income.
And that assumes constant growth- averaging 7-8%, for over 20 years. No prolonged bear markets- no years of measly growth. How many of you have avoided all market risk- every year, for 20 years. Maybe if you were in cash, but then you didn't have the 7-8% compounding required- so you'd need even more contribution if you were risk averse.
An all B fund retirement puts all the market risk, systemic risk, and financial management risk on the pilot.
I'm sure you've heard the old saying- "never fly with doctors or invest with pilots"
For those that want to freeze or trade our Defined Benefit Plan- google immediate annuity. Click on any of the results. Enter how much you'd like to receive in retirement, and your age.
The result will be a 7 figure number ~ $1.7M depending on your age.
How many of you have a 401k portfolio of that magnitude?
You would need well north of 25% in the B fund for more than 20 years to achieve the NPV required to replace that annuitized income.
And that assumes constant growth- averaging 7-8%, for over 20 years. No prolonged bear markets- no years of measly growth. How many of you have avoided all market risk- every year, for 20 years. Maybe if you were in cash, but then you didn't have the 7-8% compounding required- so you'd need even more contribution if you were risk averse.
An all B fund retirement puts all the market risk, systemic risk, and financial management risk on the pilot.
I'm sure you've heard the old saying- "never fly with doctors or invest with pilots"
10-07-2014, 04:23 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by olly
I have said this many times on this forum.
For those that want to freeze or trade our Defined Benefit Plan- google immediate annuity. Click on any of the results. Enter how much you'd like to receive in retirement, and your age.
The result will be a 7 figure number ~ $1.7M depending on your age.
How many of you have a 401k portfolio of that magnitude?
You would need well north of 25% in the B fund for more than 20 years to achieve the NPV required to replace that annuitized income.
And that assumes constant growth- averaging 7-8%, for over 20 years. No prolonged bear markets- no years of measly growth. How many of you have avoided all market risk- every year, for 20 years. Maybe if you were in cash, but then you didn't have the 7-8% compounding required- so you'd need even more contribution if you were risk averse.
An all B fund retirement puts all the market risk, systemic risk, and financial management risk on the pilot.
I'm sure you've heard the old saying- "never fly with doctors or invest with pilots"
For those that want to freeze or trade our Defined Benefit Plan- google immediate annuity. Click on any of the results. Enter how much you'd like to receive in retirement, and your age.
The result will be a 7 figure number ~ $1.7M depending on your age.
How many of you have a 401k portfolio of that magnitude?
You would need well north of 25% in the B fund for more than 20 years to achieve the NPV required to replace that annuitized income.
And that assumes constant growth- averaging 7-8%, for over 20 years. No prolonged bear markets- no years of measly growth. How many of you have avoided all market risk- every year, for 20 years. Maybe if you were in cash, but then you didn't have the 7-8% compounding required- so you'd need even more contribution if you were risk averse.
An all B fund retirement puts all the market risk, systemic risk, and financial management risk on the pilot.
I'm sure you've heard the old saying- "never fly with doctors or invest with pilots"
10-07-2014, 04:50 PM
#37
Sick of this Shizz
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Professional Excessee
Posts: 18
This place went from the premiere place to work to the one of the worst inside of 3 years. I would steer anyone I call a friend away from here. Mismanagement on an epic scale. The climate is toxic. It's beyond standard negotiation crunch time BS. I would leave in a heartbeat if I had under 5 years here.
10-07-2014, 05:15 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Baja
The message from Reps varies from one who says this company offer was a surprise to others that acknowledge it had been discussed among themselves prior to the company offer. This Rep says he is interested in the concept while an MEC COMM today says this A Plan freeze idea is unacceptable. The MEC is becoming dysfunctional. And where are our regular updates from the NC? Have they been muzzled?
The NC works for the MEC. Until the MEC decides which direction to go the NC might be perceived as leading their decision with too much public comment. We should be hearing more comm from Block reps ASAP!
Now back to some facts, of which I have next to none. Just possible scenarios. A switch to a defined contribution benefit only plan is most beneficial for those who are most senior and those hired at a young age. Those hired in their 40's could get the short end of the stick. This depends on the details of the proposal and how close you are to FedEx retirement at this moment in time.
Since the likelihood of the company giving us 100 cents on the dollar during a transition is very low, you should understand where the different voting blocks are coming from.
The most senior are already fully vested and will be taken care of. Basically no change for them unless there is a higher multiplier offered to THEM as an incentive to change the plan. Remember VEBA? Yeah, me too. They will be able to keep what they have already earned which is fair. But offering them a commission to sell the rest of us out is unsat.
In one scenario (as we don't have details on this) - Those having not earned a full A plan benefit would get frozen with no further A plan accrual. Will they have enough time to make up the difference? Good question. If you are young enough you think the risk of the A plan remaining intact over 30 years is not worth the hefty benefit. The young would rather have LESS benefit as long as ALL of it is in a B plan that is all theirs. One's attitude depends mostly on how old you were when hired and how old you are now. In your 20's or early 30's and you're more likely to meet or exceed the old plan's benefits. In your 40's, maybe not. I'm guessing not.
If you know someone who retired from active duty on the MEC, I recommend contacting them today.
When you hear opinions on the subject consider the speaker's age at hire and how many years they've been here. Those determine how much skin they have in the changing retirement plan game and how much a change would benefit them.
Last edited by Gunter; 10-07-2014 at 05:50 PM.
10-07-2014, 05:31 PM
#39
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Gunter
MEC members are seldom 100% in agreement. That's just how it works. It's only dysfunctional when one, or more, reps think their opinion should be weighted more than the others and they hold up meetings to explain that fact. You feeling me TonyC?
Why don't you spell it out?
.
10-07-2014, 05:34 PM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: MD-11 CA
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by Malter1
This place went from the premiere place to work to the one of the worst inside of 3 years. I would steer anyone I call a friend away from here. Mismanagement on an epic scale. The climate is toxic. It's beyond standard negotiation crunch time BS. I would leave in a heartbeat if I had under 5 years here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
