FedEx Fully Exploits WSJ Article & SFA

Discussion in 'FedEx Discussions' started by MrFedEx, May 6, 2010.

  1. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Typically, FedEx is totally exploiting the recent anti-union Wall Street journal article to the fullest extent possible. As usual, employees are hearing nothing about the other side of the argument. Same with the SFA. Managers are all "reminding" us that the SFA has once again verified that "FedEx Is a Great Place to Work". Never mind that the numbers are a complete lie. Amazing. Where are the ethics of this company?
     
  2. SmithBarney

    SmithBarney Well-Known Member

    Don't think they won't exploit anything they can...

    Don't think that without a union we have a hope of keeping our benefits...
     
  3. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Don't think.
     
  4. Ricochet1a

    Ricochet1a New Member

    Express is in a position where it can't drop health insurance. 85-90% of AGFS wage employees are part-time, 30% of DGO are part-time. The part-timers take the working conditions for one reason and one reason alone - the health insurance. If Express were to drop health insurance just for the part-time employees, they couldn't keep a part-time work force that would do the job. I'd be gone in a minute if the health insurance for part-timers was discontinued - as would practically every other part-timer.

    The other variable in the mix is that FedEx is self funded for its health insurance. The demographics that make up the part-time work force are much younger than the national average, in better health and are usually just starting families. The cost to Express to cover this demographic is considerably less than the national average per capita. So by being self funded, Express is able to pay for coverage that amounts to routine doctors visits and the occasional condition which may reqire hospital admission. There are definately employees that have children with chronic medical conditions, but even here it tends to be less than the national average per family.

    This was actually an element of the push for the health legislation. To force younger, more healthy Americans to pay into an insurance pool to enable less healthy Americans to purchase insurance at the same rates and cover everyone at the same time. However there is a fundamental flaw (besides its unconstitutionality). If auto insurance rates were set without regard to individual risk assessment, the poor drivers would snap up the insurance while the safe drivers would go without. Cost isn't apportioned according to risk under this model. Health care isn't a "right", it is a service and insurance for that service is priced according to risk. No matter how one calls it, what was done was socialization of health care by stealth means. If the courts don't toss out the legislation, it will be repealed eventually. With all of the unfunded liabilites the Federal government is currently facing, taking on this liability would make the Federal government insolvent in about 15 years time between the cost of health care and social security payments.

    I haven't taken a look at Express' financials on medical claims payments for over a year, but the per employee pay out is considerably less than the national average and less than what a major insurance company would charge on a capitation rate if they assumed the medical claims liability for a flat fee per employee covered. Now if Express employed a bunch of 40 to 60 year olds as its typical employee, then they'd be looking to drop coverage anyway they could.

    Given that Express wants to go more and more to a part-time work force, don't look for the health insurance to be dropped, look for the premium charged to the employee for coverage to go up and up. I'm justing waiting for the ball to drop for what the premium increases for 2011 will be - both monthly and per visit charges.
     
  5. SmithBarney

    SmithBarney Well-Known Member

    The fact that FedEx put out a memo, regarding that "at this point FedEx will make no changes to the 2010 benefits" thats a paraphrase, but believe me its
    in their minds.
     
  6. SmithBarney

    SmithBarney Well-Known Member

    15 of the 20 Couriers at my current station are 40-60, and 2 are over 60.
    6 of the 10 couriers at my last station were over 40...

    granted thats a small sample, premiums go up for less coverage... my union dues at UPS(3 years ago) cost me half as much as my weekly Insurance deductions at FedEx.

    BBSAM, this is a FEDEX discussion, you aren't a FedEx Employee.. unless you secretly want to be one.
     
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Are you offering me a job?
     
  8. FedEx courier

    FedEx courier New Member

    Isn't that what makes bbsam so entertaining? He knows very little about FedEx Express yet he comments on every thread. This guy is the Cliff Claven of the Fedex discussion board.
     
  9. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Ah-hem. I comment on all different things I know nothing about. And yes, I find it entertaining, but there are so many other things about me that are entertaining.:happy2:
     
  10. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    It just dawned on me what you have said. In pointing out that I am not a Fedex Employee, are you in fact conceding the Ground contractor model? For years I've heard nothing but folks on BC insisting that contractors were in fact employees. Good of you to see the light.
     
  11. MrFedEx

    MrFedEx Engorged Member

    Most employees have finally started to see that FedEx has "jumped the shark" in terms of their rhetoric, which is increasingly meaningless. They'll do anything they want and expect us to swallow it.
     
  12. Ricochet1a

    Ricochet1a New Member

    The reason for no changes to 2010 is that many of the mandated changes for coverage don't kick in till later this year and there is tremendous political pressure on the major corporations to NOT start passing costs on to their employeee - which will happen regardless.

    Many large corporations have already done write downs to their financial statements - as required by SEC rules - reflecting the increased costs to them of the legislation.

    The changes to the 2011 benefits package is currently being worked over. Premiums will be going up and copays will be going up - the question is just how much. One of the contributing factors to FedEx not changing premiums yet - and not disclosing what they will be in 2011 - is due to the FAA bill still being in limbo. There have been almost endless continuing resolutions keeping funding levels were they were with the last funding bill. Since the Senate doesn't want to tackle the issues in the latest FAA funding bill - RLA being one of the biggest - they keep kicking the ball down the road every few months with a continuing resolution to keep the FAA funded.

    Supposedly - from what I'm hearing - is that the Senate will finally bite the bullet and move the FAA legislation sometime before the current CR expires in early July. There are enough votes in favor of FedEx keeping its RLA status that the people I talk with state that it won't be in the final bill passed by the Senate and the Conference Committee won't fight to replace the provision which changes FedEx's RLA classification.

    So unless Fred does something really stupid in the next couple of months - he'll get to keep his RLA classification. The 777 deal mentioned in another thread is connected to this. Fred is trying to play nice to the Senate right now. Buying jets from Boeing in the current economy is his big "nice" move right now.

    I think management in just about every station has posted a copy of that little WSJ piece. I really don't see how an "objective" editor wrote that. It is something right of out FedEx's talking points. The only thing I can think is going on with that piece is that it was "fed" to the WSJ and they printed it as an article practically verbatim. The interesting thing would be to see what the ties are between Rupert Murdock (which owns the WSJ now) and FedEx. One hand has got to be washing the other there.
     
  13. FedEx courier

    FedEx courier New Member

    Is anybody even talking about the contractor vs. employees issue in this article. The title of the thread is "FedEx fully Exploits WSJ Article & SFA", I don' know about anyone else but I fail to see any connection to the Ground employee issue in this thread.
     
  14. FedEx courier

    FedEx courier New Member

    If you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic when I typed "entertaining". Honestly to me it isn't entertaining at all but I can't speak for everyone. What is interesting is you spend so much time commenting yet you choose to remain uninformed about the actual workings of what you attempt to discuss. Seems like a person would actually want to have some knowledge about what they are choosing to dedicate so much of their time in discussing. Just an observation nothing more or less.
     
  15. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    And a fascinating observation it is. Just an observantion. Nothing more nothing less.
     
  16. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    To simplify it for you, I was responding to Fredly. Since he put forth the statement that I am not a Fedex employee, then it got me to thinking "Well what am I then?" Therefore I could only figure that I must be a contractor, which is what I've always said, but I hadn't realized that others had come around to that way of thinking. Not too hard to see the connection now is it? Well, doesn't really matter. Incidentally, my original, mindless post which said, "Don't think" was all I had to say on the matter of the thread and I'm not even really sure what it meant. Just seemed like the right thing to say in response to Fredly.:happy2:
     
  17. FedEx courier

    FedEx courier New Member

    Another waste of time and energy for the sake of trying to push people's buttons.
     
  18. FedEx courier

    FedEx courier New Member

    Not really "fascinating" just kind of boring and sad.
     
  19. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Seems to get a response out of you every time.
     
  20. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    You need not respond and I thank you for your pity though I think it misplaced.