FDX - No negotiations update?
06-21-2015, 05:00 PM
#101
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Busboy
... 68% of our crew force voted to "screw" ourselves, and all others not 53 on that date, out of the $25K, that needed to be renegotiated, in 2011.
And, needs to be renegotiated each contract going forward!
.
06-21-2015, 05:25 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
The special deal was given to the guys over 53 in the last contract.
I am just trying to get that same deal for the rest of us.
JJ, I understand the purpose of the fund. I also understand that we would have to negotiate that benefit again in the future for the guys that didn't get it. All I am saying, is if this NC didn't negotiate to give the next generation the same deal the last generation got, then I will vote no.
I see nothing sad about that.
It's just business.
I won't vote yes, for a contract that does not treat me equally to guys that are still on the property.
Let me guess, JJ, you got the 25K, didn't you?
"I've got mine", ring a bell?
I am just trying to get that same deal for the rest of us.
JJ, I understand the purpose of the fund. I also understand that we would have to negotiate that benefit again in the future for the guys that didn't get it. All I am saying, is if this NC didn't negotiate to give the next generation the same deal the last generation got, then I will vote no.
I see nothing sad about that.
It's just business.
I won't vote yes, for a contract that does not treat me equally to guys that are still on the property.
Let me guess, JJ, you got the 25K, didn't you?
"I've got mine", ring a bell?
Yes, I did get the 25K. I was the recipient of that very good deal, along with everyone else who was 53 or older at the time of the last contract.
From what I remember, that good deal was supposed to be an incentive for guys approaching retirement age (Age 60), to actually retire, instead of flushing back to a F/E seat, in part to avoid spending retirement money on health care, because, as you know, Medicare didn't start until one is 65. Of course, the vast majority of guys who got that windfall didn't retire as was hoped, but instead, either went to the back seat, until (Dec '07 I believe) when the age limit was raised, or because they hadn't reached Age 60, they just stayed where they were, and enjoyed their new found money and their seniority.
I understand your wanting all generations of FedEx pilots to have all the benefits of previous generations, but in this case, the reasoning behind the original benefit no longer is valid, either for guys who got it, who are still on the property, or anyone else who didn't get it to begin with.
Just the way I see it. As for my "very sad" comment, it was because a contract has a million parts to it, and to vote either "Yes" or "No", based on only one element of the whole contract seems both sad and shortsighted to me.
JJ
And just to add a thought, that money sits in an account, under the pilot's name, but cannot be accessed until he or she retires, and can then only be used for medical/dental/prescription/approved health-related items.
Last edited by Jetjok; 06-21-2015 at 05:30 PM. Reason: To add an additional comment
06-21-2015, 07:22 PM
#105
On Reserve
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
DW and BC introduced and explained the VEBA Trust as a way to fix their own retirement medical coverage costs.
They didn't even try to hide the fact that many of the rest of us might never see the same benefit. I had more than one "debate" at Union Roadshows with BC about why we (the Membership) should vote to take care of the 2 of them.
I opposed the TA for that and other reasons. But ... silly me, I also opposed AGE 65 because it was VERY BAD for me and everyone else who always planned to retire at 60. We ALL lost 5 years seniority that day (Imagine what different seat you might be in if 750 folks retired in those 5 years; how about what better training and vacation periods you might have been able to hold, better monthly bid awards? All for a few folks who didn't properly plan for retirement and don't have any hobbies they'd rather be doing instead hub-turning at night! That's sad and kind of pathetic).
We gave the guys who were 53 when we signed that contract a bonus just because they were 53. It's a benefit that SHOULD have been negotiated for ALL of us!*?
As our Union leadership said at the time, "This one's for us and ... clink, clink ... Geesh, I love Union Politics
They didn't even try to hide the fact that many of the rest of us might never see the same benefit. I had more than one "debate" at Union Roadshows with BC about why we (the Membership) should vote to take care of the 2 of them.
I opposed the TA for that and other reasons. But ... silly me, I also opposed AGE 65 because it was VERY BAD for me and everyone else who always planned to retire at 60. We ALL lost 5 years seniority that day (Imagine what different seat you might be in if 750 folks retired in those 5 years; how about what better training and vacation periods you might have been able to hold, better monthly bid awards? All for a few folks who didn't properly plan for retirement and don't have any hobbies they'd rather be doing instead hub-turning at night! That's sad and kind of pathetic
).We gave the guys who were 53 when we signed that contract a bonus just because they were 53. It's a benefit that SHOULD have been negotiated for ALL of us!*?
As our Union leadership said at the time, "This one's for us and ... clink, clink ... Geesh, I love Union Politics
06-21-2015, 09:50 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Bus driver
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by Jetjok
Full pull,
Perhaps... but I'd suggest that for the vast majority of pilots, both at FedEx, as well as at other airlines, the "new Normal" is the same as the mandatory retirement age, that being 65.
Perhaps... but I'd suggest that for the vast majority of pilots, both at FedEx, as well as at other airlines, the "new Normal" is the same as the mandatory retirement age, that being 65.
06-22-2015, 04:40 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
God forbid that age 65 is the new normal. Having to work until 65 to get full retirement? We would be insane to negotiate that away. It should stay as it is, an option. It would be nice to collect some pension payments before we die on the job.
And absolutely, people should get some health care incentive to help them bridge that gap before Medicare kicks in.
And absolutely, people should get some health care incentive to help them bridge that gap before Medicare kicks in.
06-22-2015, 02:09 PM
#108
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11, old man
Posts: 2,198
Originally Posted by busdriver12
God forbid that age 65 is the new normal. Having to work until 65 to get full retirement? We would be insane to negotiate that away. It should stay as it is, an option. It would be nice to collect some pension payments before we die on the job.
And absolutely, people should get some health care incentive to help them bridge that gap before Medicare kicks in.
And absolutely, people should get some health care incentive to help them bridge that gap before Medicare kicks in.
fbh
06-23-2015, 03:12 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by Jetjok
Full pull,
Perhaps... but I'd suggest that for the vast majority of pilots, both at FedEx, as well as at other airlines, the "new Normal" is the same as the mandatory retirement age, that being 65.
Perhaps... but I'd suggest that for the vast majority of pilots, both at FedEx, as well as at other airlines, the "new Normal" is the same as the mandatory retirement age, that being 65.
06-23-2015, 03:56 PM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
I got mine ... Pull up the ladder!*?
Originally Posted by Jetjok
Perhaps... but I'd suggest that for the vast majority of pilots, both at FedEx, as well as at other airlines, the "new Normal" is the same as the mandatory retirement age, that being 65.
JJ ...
Even Management has conceded that "we're not in the same business as the passenger carrying airlines."
AGE 65 was spawned when our pax carrying brethren (with ALPA's support I might ad) LOST THEIR PENSIONS IN BANKRUPTCY.
Most of my Major Airline friends couldn't possibly have retired at AGE 60. It "might" be their NEW NORMAL, it shouldn't have to be ours. Good job trying to change the subject though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
