FedEx - Other Retirement Improvement Options
11-15-2017, 09:07 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by TonyC
No, it's not frozen...
.
.
I would love a cola or a cap increase, the MEC said it wasn't possible. Like you I would love to see the retirement numbers, I personally think they would support the MEC position, particularly when it comes to adding 10% new people a year to an uncapped cola plan. But as we haven't been given the numbers all's we can do is speculate. I suppose knowledge is power and those with the power don't want to share it.
11-15-2017, 09:23 AM
#52
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2
I would love a cola or a cap increase, the MEC said it wasn't possible.
They said it wasn't possible after they said it was fair, achievable, and The Company could afford it.
If you're going to believe it just because the MEC said so, which version are you going to believe?
They say, "Trust me." You say, "Of course."
I say, "Show me."
.
11-15-2017, 10:41 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
How is being forced out of your hypothetical "plan 3" by the majority any different than being forced out of the A-plan by a majority who want say a B-plan-centric model. Just because 51% of the 2021 crew force under the age of 40 have the same A-plan as the older minority doesn't mean they're going to want to keep it. We're not in the same boat. A WB captain retiring tomorrow is in a yacht, while a 30 year-old new hire is in a little dingy being towed behind the yacht. We would all like a shot at the yacht, but our current system isn't going to provide that option for our younger generation. So, we're just as vulnerable to your scenario above in 2021 under our current situation.
Give people options, put language in the CBA to protect those options and avoid pitting one faction against the other. IMO, that's far more likely to create a situation acceptable to the entire group.
Give people options, put language in the CBA to protect those options and avoid pitting one faction against the other. IMO, that's far more likely to create a situation acceptable to the entire group.
As far as language in the contract that protected those options, how would you do that. In contract ratification, the majority wins. How could you prevent people in plan 1 & 2 from freezing plan 3 and forcing you into one of the other plans?
Why not try to raise the limits on the DB plan? Show me the numbers that prove it is to expensive.
There has to be a DC number with cash over cap and our current DB plan that would work for everyone.
11-15-2017, 11:27 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by pinseeker
The difference is that with one plan, a majority in that plan have to vote to get rid of it. If you have 3 plans, like in my hypothetical, everybody in plan 3 could want to keep it, yet the people who have no vested interest in that plan could vote it away.
As far as language in the contract that protected those options, how would you do that. In contract ratification, the majority wins. How could you prevent people in plan 1 & 2 from freezing plan 3 and forcing you into one of the other plans?
Why not try to raise the limits on the DB plan? Show me the numbers that prove it is to expensive.
There has to be a DC number with cash over cap and our current DB plan that would work for everyone.
As far as language in the contract that protected those options, how would you do that. In contract ratification, the majority wins. How could you prevent people in plan 1 & 2 from freezing plan 3 and forcing you into one of the other plans?
Why not try to raise the limits on the DB plan? Show me the numbers that prove it is to expensive.
There has to be a DC number with cash over cap and our current DB plan that would work for everyone.
Raising the limits on the DB plan sounds great. But that wouldn't happen for many years, so it sounds fine to people who are younger...doesn't do anything for those who don't have several years to wait. Hence the rush to negotiate something else.
There can't be a comprehensive solution that works for everyone until the next contract. And that will exclude maybe 1,000 pilots on the property, as they will be gone.
11-15-2017, 12:50 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by busdriver12
What is to prevent people from forcing any changes to a retirement plan on everyone in new contract negotiations anyways? They can't trade away what you have already accrued, though.
Raising the limits on the DB plan sounds great. But that wouldn't happen for many years, so it sounds fine to people who are younger...doesn't do anything for those who don't have several years to wait. Hence the rush to negotiate something else.
There can't be a comprehensive solution that works for everyone until the next contract. And that will exclude maybe 1,000 pilots on the property, as they will be gone.
Raising the limits on the DB plan sounds great. But that wouldn't happen for many years, so it sounds fine to people who are younger...doesn't do anything for those who don't have several years to wait. Hence the rush to negotiate something else.
There can't be a comprehensive solution that works for everyone until the next contract. And that will exclude maybe 1,000 pilots on the property, as they will be gone.
They can't trade it away, but they can freeze it and force other options. And, if a majority vote for that, they are affecting themselves as well because they are tied into the plan they are voting to change.
Why can a comprehensive solution only be obtained during the next round of negotiations? If we are going to try to do it now, do it right. I don't want a bandaid fix.
11-15-2017, 01:40 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by pinseeker
Why can a comprehensive solution only be obtained during the next round of negotiations? If we are going to try to do it now, do it right. I don't want a bandaid fix.
But tell us how we can get to that point without being in negotiations, or without saving the company some money?
11-15-2017, 01:42 PM
#57
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by pinseeker
Why can a comprehensive solution only be obtained during the next round of negotiations?
"Trust me. It's a win/win."
Yeahright.
.
11-15-2017, 01:49 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by MEMA300
Freeze the A-plan and give us the DAL retirement plan. ???
My DAL buds (almost exclusively former NWA folks) are telling me they really wish they had the FDX retirement plan!*?
Maybe it's not as bad as you think?
MM
11-15-2017, 01:54 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Maybe the hope is that when the mega tax cut to corporations is passed, instead of doing stock buybacks with that extra money, the employees will be given big raises and improved retirement. We won't even have to ask!
11-15-2017, 01:58 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by busdriver12
Maybe the hope is that when the mega tax cut to corporations is passed, instead of doing stock buybacks with that extra money, the employees will be given big raises and improved retirement. We won't even have to ask!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
