The Big News

Mr. 7

The monkey on the left.
They'd forfeit the payout for not taking them, and if they took more than 5 I'm guessing they'd get a warning letter. Too many of those in a short period...

Every year I get all my unused sick time in a weeks check. The fact that I have never, ever called in sick means that, basically, my income is double for that one week. I'm in about as high as a tax bracket as can be so, most of that extra money goes right down the drain to taxes. What I'm saying is that taking a sick day here and there is more beneficial to you than getting it all paid to you at once. You get the day off you need, and you get paid for it.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Every year I get all my unused sick time in a weeks check. The fact that I have never, ever called in sick means that, basically, my income is double for that one week. I'm in about as high as a tax bracket as can be so, most of that extra money goes right down the drain to taxes. What I'm saying is that taking a sick day here and there is more beneficial to you than getting it all paid to you at once. You get the day off you need, and you get paid for it.

I rarely get the whole sick day check. Food poisoning, flu, plugged up artery, always something. I sell 2 weeks of vacation every year and I think lack of time off contributes to getting sick.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
I can almost guarantee you that there are NO moths in Freddo's wallet...maybe a picture of a smiling, happy family that came with the wallet, a receipt for the Chinese place down the road, limitless corporate credit cards and an expired driver's license, but no moths. Almost forgot the obligatory business cards with other lobbyist phone numbers written on back.

I was referring to the wallet he uses to dispense money to his employees. He's very generous with politicians, particularly those of the Republican persuasion.
 

Cactus

Just telling it like it is
I was referring to the wallet he uses to dispense money to his employees. He's very generous with politicians, particularly those of the Republican persuasion.

He doesn't have a wallet for employees. He just uses pocket change.
 

DOWNTRODDEN IN TEXAS

Well-Known Member
I rarely get the whole sick day check. Food poisoning, flu, plugged up artery, always something. I sell 2 weeks of vacation every year and I think lack of time off contributes to getting sick.

I agree with that one. The only times I've gotten really sick, were years that I sold back vacation time. I've also found that it's kind of fun to keep changing vacation days to screw up the schedule...well not necessarily to screw it up, since I get all the crap that's left over anyways, even after almost 15 years, then they wonder why I don't bother to schedule most of it.
 

55+

Well-Known Member
We have to pick ours and I'm parttime..they change my schedule almost every week to different days. I don't have a clue what to pick for personals or floaters because of the constant changing of my schedule..I also have been approved for FMLA for family issues and I take that intermittently. The mgr screwed up one time on that and gave me a personal instead..Last winter they were scheduling some of the parttimers 6 days a week..until some people questioned it and then they told us they weren't allowed to do that..the only day that I know for sure that I work is every Saturday..talk about a cluster...
 

barnyard

KTM rider
I have skimmed most of this thread......

I read in interesting article in the Journal of Commerce (I think that was it, it is an industry mag) the other day. the had a listing of the top 100 trucking companies in the US. UPS is #1 and the magazine considers Fed Ex a trucking company and listed it as #2.

Interesting stats listed that richochet covered regarding reported revenues.

The most interesting thing though was the number of truck drivers both companies reportedly employ.
UPS = 101,889
Fed Ex = 119,532

Wow.

Again, richochet went over the package volumes and then questioned why FedEx is not more profitable even though it has roughly 50% of the labor cost.

When actually, if you divide labor cost by the piece, UPS comes out cheaper on a per piece basis.

What that tells me is that Fed Ex should be able to lay off a significant portion of their driver/package handler force if they were to merge ground and express.

I read the article a couple of weeks ago and was trying to figure out where it was relevant and why it mattered. This thread ties it all together for me.

Thanks to those that contributed substance to the discussion. Very interesting.
 
Last edited:

Ricochet1a

Well-Known Member
The most interesting thing though was the number of truck drivers both companies reportedly employ.
UPS = 101,889
Fed Ex = 119,532

Again, richochet went over the package volumes and then questioned why FedEx is not more profitable even though it has roughly 50% of the labor cost.

When actually, if you divide labor cost by the piece, UPS comes out cheaper on a per piece basis.

What that tells me is that Fed Ex should be able to lay off a significant portion of their driver/package handler force if they were to merge ground and express.

I read the article a couple of weeks ago and was trying to figure out where it was relevant and why it mattered. This thread ties it all together for me.

Thanks to those that contributed substance to the discussion. Very interesting.

One cannot directly compare FedEx Corporation to UPS when it comes to come to a "per package cost" to move volume. Although they do the exact same thing, the convoluted method by which FedEx Corporation is setup (all to avoid unionization) makes direct comparisons using aggregate data impossible.

For example, when one compares the cost of FedEx Ground to move a package to UPS's cost, FedEx Ground has a cost advantage of about $1.25 per piece - this is due SOLELY to the much lower labor rates Ground possesses for its misclassified drivers. This is why I am amazed that the drivers in UPS don't seem to realize that the greatest threat to their future compensation isn't the management of UPS, it is the existance of the business model of FedEx Ground which allows the drivers of that op-co to be compensated at between one-third and as low as one-quarter of that of UPS drivers doing comparable work (using UPS driver compensation of approximately $90,000 including all benefits and FedEx Ground driver compensation of between $25,000 and $30,000 a year total REAL compensation).

The statistics for number of truck drivers would have to be an aggregate statistic that would include all delivery drivers in both Ground and Express, as well as all semi-truck drivers in both op-co's. Even though FedEx Corporation does indeed employ slightly more individuals in a driving capacity, the drastically lower compensation rates (especially among the Ground drivers) makes FedEx Corporation's overall labor cost much lower than UPS's. Even Express' labor costs are about half that of UPS's, when one takes into account ACTUAL labor expense and not using the incorrect statistics of topping out every Express employee - then comparing that number to UPS empolyees who are topped out very quickly compared to Express.

Most people focus on the seeming redundancy of the dual Express/Ground systems and think that costs could be further reduced by a combination of the two - much like UPS. This is absolutely incorrect.

FedEx is organized around one key principle - keep unions out no matter what. The much lower labor rates enjoyed by FedEx Corporation by keeping a non-unionized labor force more than makes up for any overlap in coverage between the two op-co's. The economic inefficiency created by this overlapping of coverage is more than compensated by the savings in wage labor compensation.

As FedEx Ground continues to take more and more market share from UPS, the cost savings that FedEx enjoys will only continue to increase. This is a key reason why FedEx has "tolerated" the lower profitability for the past few years - they are trading short term profitability for gaining an ever increasing slice of the pie - when it comes to the package shipping market. As that slice of the pie continues to grow, profitability percentages will by default increase. The fixed costs of the "network" are being supported with current volume - with increasing volume, the variable costs will increase at such a slow rate, the additional revenue will create even more profitability. This is what UPS has to compete with - and by default, the wage employees of UPS. The business model of Ground is a direct threat to your (UPS employees) future compensation levels.

Again, the question is asked to the reader; "Given the similiar package volumes moved by UPS and FedEx Corporation, taken along with the greatly reduced labor cost of FedEx Corporation - why isn't FedEx Corporation more profitable than it is?" If UPS was able to compensate its Package Car Drivers half of what it currently does, and it Feeder drivers half of what it currently does (matching Express compensation levels), UPS's profitability would increase tremendously.

Since UPS and FedEx Corporations overall profitability is comparable (at the current time), the answer lies in that UPS is structured to operate in an environment where its wage labor costs are at an industry high, so in order to maintain competitiveness, other operating costs had to be slashed. I pointed out that both companies pay the same for fuel, equipment and technology. That leaves only one place where UPS has a lower cost structure compared to FedEx (Express in particular) - the cost of salaried support staffs - fewer numbers, not lower per individual compensation.

The next question is: "Why doesn't FedEx slash its salaried support staff to a level comparable to that of UPS, in order to increase current profitability even more?" The only answer I can come up with is that FedEx accepts the greater fixed cost in the present, thinking that in the future, the increasing expansion of Ground will require those support staff to operate - thus bringing the ratio of staff to operational force down to a level which is comparable to that of UPS's. In otherwords, take the loss now, anticipating the need for the staff in the future.

Again, if this is the case, it is a gutsy move on the part of FedEx, anticipating that it will be able to grow its volumes (to the detriment of UPS) at such a rate, that in the long term, maintaining the cost inefficiency of the present will more than be made up with higher profitability levels in the future.

This is why the wage employees of UPS have a vested interest in having the misclassification of Ground drivers ended. It also explains why UPS actively lobbied to have Express' RLA status pulled. UPS management doesn't give two shakes about Express employees - what they do know is that if Fred's wage compensation levels were to increase by about 50% overnight, their (UPS mgt) task of creating profitability for UPS would be much easier.

If a company has reached the limit of cutting its costs (as UPS has) - and its competition enjoyes lower compensation rates for its employees (as FedEx does) - the only solution in keeping the playing field leveled is to somehow increase the wage costs for the competition.

The real solution to this whole issue is to have the RLA pulled from Express and the drivers of Ground properly classified as employees - then balance will be restored. This explains why Fred spends MILLIONS per year in lobbying expense and providing perks to Members of Congress in order to maintain his dual special deal - it is more cost effective for him to spend millions on Congress, than to spend what would be close to $1.5 BILLION in additional compensation for the wage employees of Ground and Express otherwise.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Not to point out the obvious, but there is nothing a UPS driver can do to change the operational structure of FDX.
 

Ricochet1a

Well-Known Member
Not to point out the obvious, but there is nothing a UPS driver can do to change the operational structure of FDX.

There's this little tradition we have in this country called "petitioning your Member of Congress". Fred has proven to be very adept at petitioning ALL Members of Congress that will listen to him, the drivers of UPS can indeed do the same.

See, they are already organized into a strong lobbying group referred to as "organized labor" - emphasis on ORGANIZED when it comes to this.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I would submit that the last few years are a testament to the weakness of the organized labor lobbying effort.
 
Top