R1a Question

[Ricochet1a]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread (Office locations closing).

I did called up someone I know who is VERY familiar with what is going on within Office (same person who gave me the heads-up on Cheetah). and it appears that about 20 Office locations nationwide have been closed.

This ISN'T any contraction of Office, it is just FedEx making a decision to close locations whose expenses exceed revenue, and have a tendency to cannibalize sales from nearby Office locations.

The managers (who are under FedEx Services) are offered positions elsewhere or are bought out. Some have transferred, some have accepted buyouts.

This is UNRELATED to what Express is going to experience - the closings are merely "trimming" the unproductive (profit margin) locations to help boost sales at surrounding stores.

 

[SmithBarney]

, yet Express' total amount spend on employee compensation is increasing... and the company is looking at major expense reductions. Connection?

BS BS BS FedEx contributes nothing to our compensation we pay for it 100% don't believe me head over to Cigna(if you aren't on anthem) and price up an identical plan to what you have now. It's actually cheaper. Our group plan should be cheaper than any individual plan, pure crap, and that's exactly what FedEx wants, they want everyone to "choose" the public option so they don't have to pay the Govt penalty for not offering health care options.

 

[vantexan]

Is that your way of saying, "I have no earthly idea how to do what I'm on here screaming should be done"?

Nah, just that you're a propagandist. All of this has been in the works for years, and we were used up to the point where we are no longer needed. Have a great career.

 

[Ricochet1a]

BS BS BS FedEx contributes nothing to our compensation we pay for it 100% don't believe me head over to Cigna(if you aren't on anthem) and price up an identical plan to what you have now. It's actually cheaper. Our group plan should be cheaper than any individual plan, pure crap, and that's exactly what FedEx wants, they want everyone to "choose" the public option so they don't have to pay the Govt penalty for not offering health care options.

Do some more research into this. I don't believe that purchasing an individual plan through CIGNA (with the same level of benefits) is cheaper than the premiums you pay each year through Express for the group plan.

Most individual plans run in the ball park of $4,000 to $6,500 a year (for coverage comparable to the Express group plan). To qualify for these plans, an individual must (usually) submit to a complete physical with EKG and blood work. If they have no pre-existing conditions, they are covered after a certain delay (90 days is the usual delay).

I think an individual pays in the ball park of $800/yr in premiums for the CIGNA plan. If you are on CIGNA and just have individual coverage, take the figure that is shown deducted in your pay stub and multiply that by 48, the annual premium is broken up into 48 equal payments - months in which there are 5 Fridays don't have a premium charged during the 5th week.

This means that Express is picking up about ($3,000 - $5,000) - speaking in actuarial terms. Since Express covers ALL insurance billing (CIGNA and Anthem are administrators, they merely do the paperwork and FedEx pays the actual bills, FedEx pays the insurance companies a fee to provide the "expert" administration of the plan) if you don't get sick at all in a year, FedEx "banks" the premium from you.

On the otherhand, if you end up in the hospital and accrue $50,000 in charges which are covered under insurance, FedEx pays those. Like all self-insured companies, FedEx is taking the risk.

However, since the majority of FedEx employees are physically fit and tend to be younger than average, FedEx wins here.

The other option for group insurance for companies is "capitation". The employer pays a flat rate based upon number of employees they have covered (the $4,000 - $6,500 rate, depending on coverage), and the insurance administrator takes the risk. If there is an outbreak of health, the insurance administrator "wins", if there is an outbreak of ill health, the insurance takes a loss.

 

[Ricochet1a]

To expand...

For employees with families, the actuarial calculated cost of insuring a family is in the ball park of $10,000 today. If you tried to insure your family with insurance comparable to that offered by Express, you'd pay in the ball park of $10,000 to get that coverage. And if you never had any health issue in that year, you get no refund (like all insurance).

This is why there are all those part-time handlers working in the AM at the ramps (they usually waive minimums). They have "real jobs", but those jobs don't offer insurance. So these people come into to Express and work 2.5 to 3 hours in the early AM, and then leave for their other job. After the deductions for insurance, what they have taken out for 401k and FICA, they are usually lucky if they have enough left in their FedEx paycheck to pay for gas to get to and from their FedEx job.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Are you the same guy who advocated having lates on purpose that would deprive the company of revenue?

He also stated that doing the right thing is based upon your hourly wage.

 

[franknitty]

Thanks again R1a for explanation to the original thread.

 

[vantexan]

I'm sure there's probably some connection, however tenuous, to some of those. Then again, I remember that you think there's a connection between your posting here a complaint about an unapproved insurance claim and the eventual approval of it, so the grains of salt are at the ready.

Here's one, though. Total domestic volumes are at pre-1998 levels, as are domestic overnight volumes, yet Express' total amount spend on employee compensation is increasing... and the company is looking at major expense reductions. Connection?

Here's another one. Pension costs --the DBPP, the old one-- increased by over 200% from 2009 to 2011. The company is looking at major expense reductions. Connection?

Tenuous, eh? So when planning for these buyouts it was pointed out that, amazingly enough, terminating the pension in 2008 was going to save millions? What a happy coincidence!! As for my medical bill, it was denied twice and I received a bill for $7500. I mentioned it here, and suddenly Blue Cross decides to pay it, which cost them less than a third of what the hospital charged me. It would have been easy for FedEx to call them, even if they don't know my name, and ask them to pay for the stress test of a FedEx employee, most likely in Texas, who was recently denied. Who knows, but it turned out great for me. As for the DBPP, well, what do you expect? More and more are retiring, are you surprised that's happening? It was a benefit that was offered, certainly they had actuaries informing them of future trends. I will concede that times are tough, and most likely major changes are needed. But please don't make out like these changes are completely in response to the current economy. They started this when times were much better, and when times improve again they'll be positioned to make much more than the billion in annual savings the analysts pointed out. But it'll come at the expense of many thousands of faithful, hardworking employees who had their finances wrecked.

 

[59 Dano]

BS BS BS FedEx contributes nothing to our compensation we pay for it 100% don't believe me head over to Cigna(if you aren't on anthem) and price up an identical plan to what you have now. It's actually cheaper. Our group plan should be cheaper than any individual plan, pure crap, and that's exactly what FedEx wants, they want everyone to "choose" the public option so they don't have to pay the Govt penalty for not offering health care options.

Go look at the financials and see how much the company is spending on pay and benefits. it's rising every year.

As for Cigna's retail rates being better than what we get through Anthem, not in my case. I'll compare my FedEx Premier individual to the closest thing available on Cigna's website. Their deductible is $1000. Mine is $300. They cover 80% of most procedures, while our Anthem covers 85%. Office visits are $35, while I pay $25. Preventive care is the same, and our prescription drug rates are about the same but slightly better. Annual out-of-pocket max is the same.

I pay $74/month for Anthem plan; Cigna's is $298/month. In my world $74 is a little bit cheaper than $298 especially when I get more for my $74.

 

[59 Dano]

Nah, just that you're a propagandist. All of this has been in the works for years, and we were used up to the point where we are no longer needed. Have a great career.

If you say so!

 

[59 Dano]

Tenuous, eh? So when planning for these buyouts it was pointed out that, amazingly enough, terminating the pension in 2008 was going to save millions? What a happy coincidence!! As for my medical bill, it was denied twice and I received a bill for $7500. I mentioned it here, and suddenly Blue Cross decides to pay it, which cost them less than a third of what the hospital charged me. It would have been easy for FedEx to call them, even if they don't know my name, and ask them to pay for the stress test of a FedEx employee, most likely in Texas, who was recently denied. Who knows, but it turned out great for me.

When I had a denied claim overturned and eventually paid, it was because the doctor called them up and bugged them about it. ::shrug::

As for the DBPP, well, what do you expect? More and more are retiring, are you surprised that's happening? It was a benefit that was offered, certainly they had actuaries informing them of future trends. I will concede that times are tough, and most likely major changes are needed. But please don't make out like these changes are completely in response to the current economy. They started this when times were much better, and when times improve again they'll be positioned to make much more than the billion in annual savings the analysts pointed out. But it'll come at the expense of many thousands of faithful, hardworking employees who had their finances wrecked.

The "much better" times of 2008? LOL!

DB pension plans are, as we are learning, a mess in the making. The theory is that the company will always be around and make 84 tones of profit (just like in the good old days when competition was scarce) and there will always be the money needed to pay out the benefits and we all live happily ever after. Of course, things change. Companies lose market share or go out of business, governments lose revenues and/or take on more employees, and we find out that it's expensive to keep paying all those people who retired years ago AND pay all of their operating costs AND pay their current employees AND fund their defined pension benefits, too.

So I ask you this -- light of the current state of the DB pension situation with pension benefits being defaulted upon, unfunded, and underfunded at alarming rates, what do you do? Do you risk it all and keep doing it like you've always done it, or do you continue until the water starts getting murky and hedge your bets from that point on?

 

[bbsam]

I bet van will say keep going with DB and when Fred defaults let the tax payer eat it. Van's such a liberal.

 

[59 Dano]

The taxpayers would only have to eat a portion of it. He'd have to eat the rest. Maybe he's not as much of a liberal as he thinks!

 

[vantexan]

The taxpayers would only have to eat a portion of it. He'd have to eat the rest. Maybe he's not as much of a liberal as he thinks!

Nope, my pension is so small I'd get all of it. It's the big earners who'd take a hit.

 

[vantexan]

When I had a denied claim overturned and eventually paid, it was because the doctor called them up and bugged them about it. ::shrug::



The "much better" times of 2008? LOL!

DB pension plans are, as we are learning, a mess in the making. The theory is that the company will always be around and make 84 tones of profit (just like in the good old days when competition was scarce) and there will always be the money needed to pay out the benefits and we all live happily ever after. Of course, things change. Companies lose market share or go out of business, governments lose revenues and/or take on more employees, and we find out that it's expensive to keep paying all those people who retired years ago AND pay all of their operating costs AND pay their current employees AND fund their defined pension benefits, too.

So I ask you this -- light of the current state of the DB pension situation with pension benefits being defaulted upon, unfunded, and underfunded at alarming rates, what do you do? Do you risk it all and keep doing it like you've always done it, or do you continue until the water starts getting murky and hedge your bets from that point on?

The termination was announced in early 2007, the economy tanked in the Fall of 2008. And certainly it was planned for before 2007 just as the move to Ground has been a long term project(the pension termination obviously a part of the overall plan). Your assertion that this is all a reaction to the current bad economy is so disingenuous it's laughable. The termination didn't happen because the company was losing market share or money. It was a calculated move based on offering an employee buyout when the infrastructure for Ground was in place. That move saves them millions, allowing everyone with a traditional pension to help pay for the employees who take their full pension considerably earlier than normal. It's about maximizing profit, and manipulating 10's of thousands of employees to do it.

My hospital didn't bug anyone except me with a ridiculous bill for a very simple, short procedure.

 

[59 Dano]

The termination was announced in early 2007, the economy tanked in the Fall of 2008.

Are we to assume that 2007 was something to brag about, LOL?

And certainly it was planned for before 2007 just as the move to Ground has been a long term project(the pension termination obviously a part of the overall plan). Your assertion that this is all a reaction to the current bad economy is so disingenuous it's laughable. The termination didn't happen because the company was losing market share or money. It was a calculated move based on offering an employee buyout when the infrastructure for Ground was in place. That move saves them millions, allowing everyone with a traditional pension to help pay for the employees who take their full pension considerably earlier than normal. It's about maximizing profit, and manipulating 10's of thousands of employees to do it.

My assertion is that the pension change was going to happen no matter what because of the inherent risk of maintaining and satisfying DB pension obligations over the long term.

 

[vantexan]

Are we to assume that 2007 was something to brag about, LOL?



My assertion is that the pension change was going to happen no matter what because of the inherent risk of maintaining and satisfying DB pension obligations over the long term.

You've apparently got a short memory. The economy was smoking hot until the summer of 2008. Granted, it was a house of cards, but that wasn't public knowledge until it came tumbling down. And again, the announcement was in early, January I believe, 2007. The planning for it had to happen earlier than that.


By the time the termination happened, newhires had been under the new Portable Pension Plan for some years. THAT was the solution to curbing future costs. Terminating the traditional pension had much more to do with paying for the buyout. Why give us more on the pension when we were going to take it early anyways? Hey, we can argue this until we are blue in the face but at this point all I want is to qualify for it and go. They'd be smart to let guys like me qualify anyways. Never know when another plugged up artery might happen. And if they're going to do it please make it soon.