Dear FedEx

thedownhillEXPRESS

Well-Known Member
I would much rather the money contributed to our pension fund on my behalf be deposited directly in to my 401K so that I can invest it as I see fit.
It's apples and oranges.
FedEx contributes a fraction of the amount to our 401k vs UPS to your pension.Its like if UPS said hey instead of the 10 grand we would have had to contribute to the pension plan per employee we're gonna give you 500 bucks to invest as you see fit.
That's the BS move Fedex pulled on their employees.
 
Last edited:

TUT

Well-Known Member
I would much rather the money contributed to our pension fund on my behalf be deposited directly in to my 401K so that I can invest it as I see fit.

I think that would be unwise. Both companies have a pension and 401k, UPS's pension is better, not sure what UPS's 401k match is, perhaps Fedex is a better there by a smidge. But you will be better served with zero gamble with the old-world (might as well call it that now) pension plan. Between that and SS you'll be approaching 100k per year forever and your house should be clear, that's great money in your Golden's and no reason to add a risk. Now put in your current 401K and that will at least be something to party off of. IMO you are better off how you are and you cannot just maneuver a 401K as you see fit, you have to invest within the plans offered.

I also assume once every 15 years the powers will take a nice chunk of the stock market back, leaving you scramble for years to recover. That stock market is a game and there are people that game it.
 
I think that would be unwise. Both companies have a pension and 401k, UPS's pension is better, not sure what UPS's 401k match is, perhaps Fedex is a better there by a smidge. But you will be better served with zero gamble with the old-world (might as well call it that now) pension plan. Between that and SS you'll be approaching 100k per year forever and your house should be clear, that's great money in your Golden's and no reason to add a risk. Now put in your current 401K and that will at least be a little nugget to feed off of. IMO you are better off how you are and you cannot just maneuver a 401K as you see fit, you have to invest within the plans offered.
We have no 401k match. UPS pays over 20k a year,In our pension plan.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Isn't the pay progression there so we with more seniority can have more money and benefits? Live modestly, you will get there.

Very, very modestly. I'm on the 2nd lowest payscale, at starting pay, which just went to $16hr with the latest raise. Before you get after me about just starting out, I'm a rehire, 3rd time with FedEx. I left after almost 15 years last year, making $18.17hr. A lot of midrange employees are in a similar situation. 2% and 3% raises, with the promise of 4% and 5% raises once we pass the midpoint of the pay range. Problem is they keep raising starting and/or top pay, so the midpoint and other points keep getting higher. So we're chasing better wages that might take 25 years or more to catch, and that's just the midpoint of the range. How would you feel if you are, after 15 years, working next to people who make $9k-10k more than you annually on 40 hrs with no hope of ever doing as well? Or a newhire who's making $19k less on 40 hours, watching topped out employees pulling further and further away each year, while he's mired in 2% raises, or 3% if they raise starting pay that much like they've done for the last couple of years? There's no getting there, just a lifetime of living modestly if you stay at FedEx. With benefits that are stripped to the nub, and no hope of a decent retirement or the ability to decently fund your 401k. The only real solution is to leave for something better if you can find it, but too many people are out there looking for too few something betters. My proposal would at least get couriers to reasonable pay in 10 years, far better than the current system, and certainly within the company's ability to pay.
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
Let me add that FedEx killed the Traditional Plan well before the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Existing employees were allowed to stay in the Traditional Plan until 2008, but new hires(after the announcement of the impending end of the TP) were forced onto the PPP.

I don't believe that happened, it was killed after the Pension Act, their public announcement at the time was referencing this act as the reason why, they weren't certain they could stay fully vested under the new laws. Now you are correct they did have another option in place as they mentioned in the same release, but the original pension wasn't killed until after the act. Perhaps that was their plan all along? Possible. I can only assume the law was passed to kill pensions. Has anyone ever heard a company that started offering a pension and reference this act as why they are now offering a pension? I have not.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I think that would be unwise. Both companies have a pension and 401k, UPS's pension is better, not sure what UPS's 401k match is, perhaps Fedex is a better there by a smidge. But you will be better served with zero gamble with the old-world (might as well call it that now) pension plan. Between that and SS you'll be approaching 100k per year forever and your house should be clear, that's great money in your Golden's and no reason to add a risk. Now put in your current 401K and that will at least be something to party off of. IMO you are better off how you are and you cannot just maneuver a 401K as you see fit, you have to invest within the plans offered.

I also assume once every 15 years the powers will take a nice chunk of the stock market back, leaving you scramble for years to recover. That stock market is a game and there are people that game it.
FedEx has a maximum match of 3.5% on the first 6% saved. But as we are at much lower pay and our portable pension is laughable, we're nowhere close to the retirement a UPS employee enjoys.
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
How would you feel if you are, after 15 years, working next to people who make $9k-10k more than you annually on 40 hrs with no hope of ever doing as well?

Ask the big three automotives. They have union and non-union working right next to each other and it is even much wider than your example. Another new normal in America. Van I know you are right slanted, but the only thing we ever have are rights and one side fights for you and the other hopes you have none. You keep America split or to the right and in time you won't have the disparity you mention above, they'll just move everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Obama's presidency has been bastardized with gridlock, his record will show he will have been a poor president, but the forces fighting against him made whatever visions he had not possible, even the healthcare act isn't a stripped down version of what it could have been. One talks human rights, the other talks tax cuts. As a common worker which one really will benefit you, if everyone played fair? IMO you always have to go rights, add and protect those rights, otherwise there are powerful forces that will gladly take advantage of you losing them and then change policies to match the new laws.
 
Last edited:

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I don't believe that happened, it was killed after the Pension Act, their public announcement at the time was referencing this act as the reason why, they weren't certain they could stay fully vested under the new laws. Now you are correct they did have another option in place as they mentioned in the same release, but the original pension wasn't killed until after the act. Perhaps that was their plan all along? Possible. I can only assume the law was passed to kill pensions. Has anyone ever heard a company that started offering a pension and reference this act as why they are now offering a pension? I have not.
They of course replaced the traditional pension with the portable pension, which pays considerably less. If the funding and reporting requirements of the traditional pension are what killed it, as claimed, why didn't they create a portable pension with a similar monetary payout? It's about increasing profits, period.
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
FedEx has a maximum match of 3.5% on the first 6% saved. But as we are at much lower pay and our portable pension is laughable, we're nowhere close to the retirement a UPS employee enjoys.

Yeah and the more or less you make salary wise, I bet both can swing pretty well. Meaning if you aren't making a lot, neither adds up to much. Now if you are a manager/skilled approaching 100k, then both probably can probably be decent enough. I can relate because I have a 401k in your ball park, depends on lot on what you make, you have to have numbers to make numbers.

But yes, the standard pensions of yore were very generous and pretty much nothing will beat those.

Here is my tip of the day: If you are unhappy with your job and you have so-so benifits, you should be applying consistently for gov't/union jobs. It may take years to get one, but when you do, you may still be unhappy but then you will have medical and a pension that does nothing but help you. You mat need to do a little more work then before as govt's are trying to strip those. And the best time to look for a job is when you already have one.
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
They of course replaced the traditional pension with the portable pension, which pays considerably less. If the funding and reporting requirements of the traditional pension are what killed it, as claimed, why didn't they create a portable pension with a similar monetary payout? It's about increasing profits, period.

Understood.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Ask the big three automotives. They have union and non-union working right next to each other and it is even much wider than your example. Another new normal in America. Van I know you are right slanted, but the only thing we ever have are rights and one side cares and wants more for you and the other hopes you have none. You keep America split or to the right and in time you won't have the disparity you mention above, they'll just move everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Obama's presidency has been bastardized with gridlock, his record will show he will have been a poor president, but the forces fighting against him made whatever visions he had not possible, even the healthcare act isn't a stripped down version of what it could have been. One talks human rights, the other talks tax cuts. As a common worker which one really will benefit you if everyone played fair? IMO you always have to go rights, add and protect them, otherwise there are powerful forces that will gladly take advantage of you losing them.
Does the one care more? The one that talks of caring more has thrown literally trillions at solving poverty but we have more impoverished now. They support a culture of dependence that keeps them in office in exchange for benefits. The other advocates a strong economy and self reliance instead of dependence. They however see the masses as a group to exploit for their own wealth creation. Neither side is interested in truly helping the working man. But let's be fair. The Republicans in the House sent more than 300 pieces of legislation to the Senate and Harry Reid wouldn't even let them be discussed. Bills like the Keystone pipeline, which would put thousands to work. President Obama can't sign or veto legislation that's never allowed out of the Senate, so who's causing gridlock? The Democrats had complete control of the government, and we at FedEx certainly didn't benefit, even though we could be unionized now if they had chosen us over campaign contributions. The only signature piece of legislation out of that period was Obamacare, which the chief architect has recently been caught revealing that they purposely lied to the American public to get it passed. It's fine for the poor who need coverage that's paid for by the rest of us, not fine for the many millions who've seen their costs rise, and we've yet to see the affect of the employer mandate, which was put off until after the elections. The Democrats didn't need another reminder of how badly this administration is governing before the elections. So please, get your own house in order before disparaging the one across the street.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Yeah and the more or less you make salary wise, I bet both can swing pretty well. Meaning if you aren't making a lot, neither adds up to much. Now if you are a manager/skilled approaching 100k, then both probably can probably be decent enough. I can relate because I have a 401k in your ball park, depends on lot on what you make, you have to have numbers to make numbers.

But yes, the standard pensions of yore were very generous and pretty much nothing will beat those.

Here is my tip of the day: If you are unhappy with your job and you have so-so benifits, you should be applying consistently for gov't/union jobs. It may take years to get one, but when you do, you may still be unhappy but then you will have medical and a pension that does nothing but help you. You mat need to do a little more work then before as govt's are trying to strip those. And the best time to look for a job is when you already have one.
No, the best thing that one can possibly do for one's self is get the best job possible through education, one with a pension and enough pay, then when you are eligible to receive that pension or your 401k is large enough to annuitize, move somewhere with a much lower cost of living. Even developing nations have places with decent Internet, movie theaters, restaurants, great weather and scenery. You can watch your favorite tv shows over the 'net, download books, magazines, and newspapers. The U.S. was in a unique position after WWII to create huge wealth and insure our Dollar as one of the most valuable hard currencies in the world. That gives us spending power in many places that provides a very decent life on considerably less. It's either that, or stay in the States, get on the exploitation train and strive for that big house in the best neighborhood or be looked down on if you don't. Our system is about money, pure and simple, and obtaining wealth is a sure fire way to poison everything around us.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
And that may work for you, but studies show over and over again that the average person doesn't have the expertise or the time to effectively manage the portfolio.

Defined benefit pension programs were implemented because companies knew that their employees would, for the most part, be unable or unwilling to prepare themselves financially for retirement.

Times have changed and companies need to adapt to these changes.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I think that would be unwise. Both companies have a pension and 401k, UPS's pension is better, not sure what UPS's 401k match is, perhaps Fedex is a better there by a smidge. But you will be better served with zero gamble with the old-world (might as well call it that now) pension plan. Between that and SS you'll be approaching 100k per year forever and your house should be clear, that's great money in your Golden's and no reason to add a risk. Now put in your current 401K and that will at least be something to party off of. IMO you are better off how you are and you cannot just maneuver a 401K as you see fit, you have to invest within the plans offered.

I also assume once every 15 years the powers will take a nice chunk of the stock market back, leaving you scramble for years to recover. That stock market is a game and there are people that game it.

UPS does not match our 401k's. They do pay the administrative fees.

Our pension took a huge hit in 2008-09 but we have recovered all of those losses and then some.

We have a self managed account option within our 401k. I used $50K of my 401k balance to purchase 526 shares of Apple 4 months ago. That stock is now worth $60K. $10K gain in 4 months is nothing to sneeze at.

There are analysts that predict the Dow will break the 60K mark by 2030.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Defined benefit pension programs were implemented because companies knew that their employees would, for the most part, be unable or unwilling to prepare themselves financially for retirement.

Times have changed and companies need to adapt to these changes.
Right, companies were just thinking about what's best for us. None of that competing with unions to keep them out.
 

Cactus

Just telling it like it is
I don't believe that happened, it was killed after the Pension Act, their public announcement at the time was referencing this act as the reason why, they weren't certain they could stay fully vested under the new laws. Now you are correct they did have another option in place as they mentioned in the same release, but the original pension wasn't killed until after the act. Perhaps that was their plan all along? Possible. I can only assume the law was passed to kill pensions.
Possible? I'd say extremely likely if friend. Weasel Smith had any involvement.
 
Top