Retirement letter to FDX MEC
 

Thx for posting the link

Couldn't agree more with the analysis and the conclusion!

Thankfully somebody is thinking clearly. Can't believe anybody would even consider giving away our A plan.

Again I have seen no evidence of anyone considering giving away our A Plan. You guys must have some really good sources.

And I can't believe anybody would vote for it. This is like PIBS.....a total deal breaker. Until someone shows me evidence that this is more than a rumor from our little sewing circle........I won't put too much stock in it. That doesn't mean the suits don't want it (what better way to fund their bonuses and executive retirement plans?) but they want lots of stuff. One is to divide us and get us arguing amongst ourselves. How they doin'?

There is a lot more than appears on this and the MEC chairmans last comm on this was an effort to distance himself from how this "offer" came to be. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Some reps actually weren't opposed...you notice many havent given their position on it.

To be fair, it's easy for us to tell them to "get stuffed" out of hand. However, our elected reps are supposed to have a bit more decorum than is normal for this board and to exercise due diligence before they tell them to "get stuffed".

Due Diligence Definitions
1.General: Measure of prudence, responsibility, and diligence that is expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances.
2.Business: Duty of a firm's directors and officers to act prudently in evaluating associated risks in all transactions.
3.Investing: Duty of the investor to gather necessary information on actual or potential risks involved in an investment.
4.
Negotiating: Duty of each party to confirm each other's expectations and understandings, and to independently verify the abilities of the other to fulfill the conditions and requirements of the agreement. Also called reasonable diligence.

Thanks to you all for putting a professional response to a horrible idea being pushed by our officers and some MEC members. As I said in another post, those who would propose such a damaging change to our retirement system must be held accountable by the membership and the MEC as a whole.

Ok, which officers and which MEC members pushed this idea? Who should be held accountable?

Which reps have commented and which haven't? And if they haven't commented, does that mean they supported the idea?

If the chairman hadn't commented and distanced himself and the MEC from this "rumor", would you then criticize him for not doing so?

Seems like lots of innuendo and not much substance here. Have an agenda or axe to grind?