Pilot strike

[59 Dano]

They have had the money and do have the money. They want you to believe they don’t.

Bingo!!!!

Hard to argue with that kind of precise, detailed, informed reasoning!

 

[59 Dano]

Van, your number of Express employees is about double the real number. The rest are other opco employees.

That aside, he still has a point that everyone just wants to ignore. Some people see an occasional stock buyback and start with the theatrics about pay. If Express has 250,000 employees and we divvy that $5 billion up amongst them, it's $20,000 spent per employee.

That's not a $20,000 pay increase, that's $20,000 total employment expense per person. It's the total of an increase in pay, an increase in the employer's part of Social Security contributions, the employer's part of Medicare contributions, 401k contributions, etc. Not to mention any other benefit costs if they were to increase those as well. A one time stock buyback doesn't mean that that same amount of money can be spent every year. Especially when there's no additional return on that investment.

 

[MAKAVELI]

That aside, he still has a point that everyone just wants to ignore. Some people see an occasional stock buyback and start with the theatrics about pay. If Express has 250,000 employees and we divvy that $5 billion up amongst them, it's $20,000 spent per employee.

That's not a $20,000 pay increase, that's $20,000 total employment expense per person. It's the total of an increase in pay, an increase in the employer's part of Social Security contributions, the employer's part of Medicare contributions, 401k contributions, etc. Not to mention any other benefit costs if they were to increase those as well. A one time stock buyback doesn't mean that that same amount of money can be spent every year. Especially when there's no additional return on that investment.

Typical management and spinning of facts to make excuses not to pay frontline workers.

 

[El Morado Diablo]

Stock buybacks don't provide additional return on investment either.
All it does it prop up the stock price so stock holders can sell their shares and make a profit.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Typical management and spinning of facts to make excuses not to pay frontline workers.

Math is racist, that's why.

Right?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Math is racist, that's why.

Right?

How much did FedEx spend in raises last year? Give you a clue. It was no where near a $billion.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Stock buybacks don't provide additional return on investment either.
All it does it prop up the stock price so stock holders can sell their shares and make a profit.

That is one economic theory.
An opinion.

 

[Cactus]

Hard to argue with that kind of precise, detailed, informed reasoning!

Oh I see, FedEx is living hand to mouth, barely scraping by.

 

[bacha29]

Oh I see, FedEx is living hand to mouth, barely scraping by.

If FDX wants to stay in business it will in the end have to pay enough to field a large enough force comprised of people with enough skill, reliability, and knowledge of the daily work objectives to keep pace with it's competitors and retain it's market share.

It appears that Fat Freddy is clearly willing to downsize and sacrifice market share in exchange for improved returns. Nothing new about that companies do it all the time. But let's wait to see what happens if that market share loss exceeds acceptable and planned levels or something unexpected happens such as Bezos builds out his network, decides to become a common carrier or somebody like Maersk or XPO Logistics decides to get in the game.

 

[Thebrownblob]

If FDX wants to stay in business it will in the end have to pay enough to field a large enough force comprised of people with enough skill, reliability, and knowledge of the daily work objectives to keep pace with it's competitors and retain it's market share.

It appears that Fat Freddy is clearly willing to downsize and sacrifice market share in exchange for improved returns. Nothing new about that companies do it all the time. But let's wait to see what happens if that market share loss exceeds acceptable and planned levels or something unexpected happens such as Bezos builds out his network, decides to become a common carrier or somebody like Maersk or XPO Logistics decides to get in the game.

It’s truly amazing that every corporation doesn’t ask you your opinion. You have every answer and are strategic juggernaut with amazing business acumen. All hail the great business wizard @bacha29 and his Magic Keyboard!!!

 

[59 Dano]

Typical management and spinning of facts to make excuses not to pay frontline workers.

No one is so adamant that he is on the right side of an issue as someone whose idea cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny.

 

[59 Dano]

Stock buybacks don't provide additional return on investment either.
All it does it prop up the stock price so stock holders can sell their shares and make a profit.

If that's not an additional return on investment, I don't know what is.

 

[El Morado Diablo]

If that's not an additional return on investment, I don't know what is.

You were comparing investing in employees vs offering buybacks.
If we look at this from the view of the investors you are correct.

In any case, aggressive buybacks are a short-sided way to prop up stock prices and make investors happy. I think most of the employees would argue some of that money would be better spent on the business and employee benefits.

 

[MAKAVELI]

If that's not an additional return on investment, I don't know what is.

Raj and Little Dickey agree with you.

FedEx CEO Rajesh Subramaniam sells shares worth over $5 million By Investing.com

FedEx CEO Rajesh Subramaniam sells shares worth over $5 million

www.investing.com

FedEx CEO Richard W. Smith reports stock transactions By Investing.com

FedEx CEO Richard W. Smith reports stock transactions

www.investing.com

 

[59 Dano]

You were comparing investing in employees vs offering buybacks.
If we look at this from the view of the investors you are correct.

From any angle, it is correct. The company invests money in stock buybacks and it gets a return of making the company more valuable. The company takes on additional recurring payroll expenses and it does not make the company more valuable.

 

[El Morado Diablo]

From any angle, it is correct. The company invests money in stock buybacks and it gets a return of making the company more valuable. The company takes on additional recurring payroll expenses and it does not make the company more valuable.

Giving money back to investors doesn't do anything to make the company better or more productive going forward. How long can you continue to squeeze money out of a company making it "more valuable" before it requires putting a massive amount of money into it to prop it back up?

 

[zeev]

Giving money back to investors doesn't do anything to make the company better or more productive going forward. How long can you continue to squeeze money out of a company making it "more valuable" before it requires putting a massive amount of money into it to prop it back up?

Giving money back to investors is the biggest signal of the end.

 

[Aquaman]

From any angle, it is correct. The company invests money in stock buybacks and it gets a return of making the company more valuable. The company takes on additional recurring payroll expenses and it does not make the company more valuable.

We sell service. The value of this company is literally its workforce. How valuable is a company that doesn’t care about its employees, and in return its employees don’t care about the service? Maybe from your desk this company doesn’t suck. But if you listened to the majority of hourly employees, the ones actually providing the service and not just looking at it through a computer screen, you’d realize this company is already dead.

 

[FedupExpress]

We sell service. The value of this company is literally its workforce. How valuable is a company that doesn’t care about its employees, and in return its employees don’t care about the service? Maybe from your desk this company doesn’t suck. But if you listened to the majority of hourly employees, the ones actually providing the service and not just looking at it through a computer screen, you’d realize this company is already dead.

No one has said it more correctly on this board than you brother!

 

[59 Dano]

Giving money back to investors doesn't do anything to make the company better or more productive going forward. How long can you continue to squeeze money out of a company making it "more valuable" before it requires putting a massive amount of money into it to prop it back up?

I said it makes the company more valuable. Don't move the goalposts.

But since you brought it up, taking on a huge recurring payroll expense doesn't make the company better or more productive going forward.