Interesting thread on the SWA forum
02-11-2023, 03:40 PM
#21
Clear ECAM
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 888
Originally Posted by threeighteen
Some dude on JF is pushing a rumor that the union just gave up the pension for all new-hires in order to get a golden parachute pension for the 55+ crowd.
Why any of you people subject yourselves to that garbage is beyond me.
02-11-2023, 06:41 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Don't rebuke the BS from the hateful 8 with facts. You will then be accused of not being a FDX pilot, management or a union official. You just can’t speak in facts on social media on any topic. 
02-11-2023, 06:49 PM
#27
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2022
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by 3pointlanding
I won't take that bet. I once read "When FedEx catches a cold ACMI carriers catch pneumonia" and we do have a cold. The difference is we are pivoting to meet the challenges (at least I hope we are) and ACMI folks just react. To top it off, I recent article about the autonomous aircraft on the horizon and already in testing. They said it cannot be done in our lifetime but here it is.
Are you joking?
02-11-2023, 07:38 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by threeighteen
Those days might be over if the FedEx MEC sends a TA with concessions to the group for membership ratification in this environment.
Some dude on JF is pushing a rumor that the union just gave up the pension for all new-hires in order to get a golden parachute pension for the 55+ crowd.
Some dude on JF is pushing a rumor that the union just gave up the pension for all new-hires in order to get a golden parachute pension for the 55+ crowd.
This same offer was made in 2015, and the union rejected it, because they didn't want to screw all the new hires since then. However, it seems the new hires we got (Nowork) have no problem screwing guys who have retired since the amendable date out of the increased retirement. So, either you care about those who worked here for a lifetime and retired since the amendable date, or you don't, but the same should apply to anyone not hired here yet either.
As Nowork would say, "screw them, they are not on the property yet".
02-11-2023, 07:51 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,099
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
Well, as Nowork says, "why should we negotiate anything for anyone not on the property"?
This same offer was made in 2015, and the union rejected it, because they didn't want to screw all the new hires since then. However, it seems the new hires we got (Nowork) have no problem screwing guys who have retired since the amendable date out of the increased retirement. So, either you care about those who worked here for a lifetime and retired since the amendable date, or you don't, but the same should apply to anyone not hired here yet either.
As Nowork would say, "screw them, they are not on the property yet".
This same offer was made in 2015, and the union rejected it, because they didn't want to screw all the new hires since then. However, it seems the new hires we got (Nowork) have no problem screwing guys who have retired since the amendable date out of the increased retirement. So, either you care about those who worked here for a lifetime and retired since the amendable date, or you don't, but the same should apply to anyone not hired here yet either.
As Nowork would say, "screw them, they are not on the property yet".
02-11-2023, 10:14 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,382
Originally Posted by threeighteen
Why are you wasting our time and energy repeating nowork’s opinions?
I'm sorry I wasted your time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
