FedEx and Pilots reach TA !!!!

[Purpled]

Big picture question:

Assuming 7% retro and 9% raise[as an example]. If my current hourly is $100, does it jump to 109 or 117?

 

[Champ42272]

Gentlemen,

Let me say two things. First, I think Bob Chimenti and his staff deserve free drinks forever for completing this Herculean task. I hope the terms are favorable and that we can get back to the business of kicking UPS's ass as usual.

Second, I don't want Retro Pay. I want a signing bonus. Here is the reason. Retro pay means "amended" 2004 and 2005 W-2 statements which requires us to file amended returns. It is a huge pain in the a$$ (I had to file an amended return this year for 2005 after the company got a ruling from IRS that Workmens Comp was not tax deductible).

I heard the rumor that any signing bonus would be paid in two equal payments, one in Dec 06 and the other in Jan 07 to divide the tax liability over two calendar (fiscal years for us) years. This eliminates the hassle with retro pay and spreads the tax liability over two calendar years. I believe that is a win-win for both parties.

What do you think?

Champ42272

 

[kc10/c130]

Champ-

Retro Pay. I understand your reasoning but just because I don't want to fill out the paperwork, if that indeed is the case, is no reason to prevent those who came before us and retired or had to retire from getting what is due to them. That being said- "My MEC speaks for me and the negotiating committee drinks for free".

 

[VaB]

Retro pay = 401k and "B" plan contribution and therefore less tax liability.

Signing bonus doesn't get any of that. At least, that's how it was explained to me.

I'm not a one issue guy except for the retro pay. If I hear it's a signing bonus, I'm not even going to read it. Very bad precedent to set.

 

[kc10/c130]

VA-
Not even gonna read it. C'mon, we all know better than that. That is the same as saying if you had to work one Tues a month you wouldn't vote for it because Tues is your fishing day.

Take it as a whole not just one part.

 

[1800 RVR]

I hope the terms are favorable and that we can get back to the business of kicking UPS's ass as usual.

First of all, congrats to you Purple people on a TA, and I hope that you guys get what you deserve.

But, Mr. Champ, I would like to know how you guys "kick UPS's ass as usual"? Or, was this comment made, tounge-in-cheek? Remember, karma is a bitch, and both companies are financially strong right now, but I would beg to differ on this comment. But, that is for another thread at another time...

Once again, congrats to the FedEx'ers and can't wait to see the details!

 

[Laughing_Jakal]

You're Wrong

VaB....your understanding is wrong. This has been addressed by various members of the MEC...a number of times. If Bob and the boys say its a good deal, then most likely it is. It doesn't matter what they call it, largely that is semantics....except that Retro Pay requires the company to ammend its earnings reports. That accounting nightmare is not going to happen. Just because it may be called a "signing bonus" vice "retro pay" doesn't mean a thing...depends on what is paid and to whom.

After the job the negotiating committee did, I can't believe you would be juvenile enough to make the statement you did.

My Negotiating Committee still speaks for me....maybe we should change your sticker to "my Negotiating Committee speaks for me....except when it comes to a one item, arbitrary issue based on semantics without me reading an otherwise good document that makes good sense."

I am not trying to start a fight here, I've just seen you make more enlightened posts in the past. Were you drunk?

 

[klhoard]

.
.
.
Well, let me be the first to go on record as a NO vote . . .
.
.
.
I've been raking in the cash over the last 18 months while y'all were in negotiations flying VLT, DRF, and AVA. . . .
.
.
.
I guess the gravy train has officially stopped for four more years. . .
.
.
.

 

[VaB]

kc10/c130:

I agree with the whole vice the part issue, but retro pay was a supposed requirement from the beginning. Otherwise, they've got no motivation to get the thing done. It's not the only motivation obviously, but you get the point.

Remember all the cool stickers and people signing off with "One more day of retro pay"? Well, if noone is going to stick to that, what was the friggin point?

Now, you have to do me a favor and tell me if it's a signing bonus instead of retro pay before I look at it, so that I don't accidentally read it.

No, if it's sigining bonus, I don't think I'll be reading it.

 

[Laughing_Jakal]

crack

VAB---must be smokin it

KLHoard.....this is like crack.....I thought you quit....you couldn't resist could you....you'll be back at it 24/7 and before you know it.

Flight info detox is a biatch

 

[Blueline]

Retro pay means "amended" 2004 and 2005 W-2 statements which requires us to file amended returns. It is a huge pain in the a$$ (I had to file an amended return this year for 2005 after the company got a ruling from IRS that Workmens Comp was not tax deductible).

Retro pay counts as income in the year in which the payment was made. It would be on your 2006 W-2 (if paid in 2006). At our airline, our retro pay check allowed contribution to 401K as well as the company match.

 

[VaB]

Well, the negotiating committee guys did do a good job. Just the minor detail of reading what they've actually agreed to.

And I'm pretty sure that it was ALPA that had the stickers made that said the 'one more day of retro pay' thing, it's not like it's something that I made up and making an arbitrary issue. I could be wrong, it's happened from time to time.

Some of you guys are getting pretty fiesty already, and we haven't even seen anything. What's going to happen when we actually get to see some details. I'm all-a-twitter with the exctiement.

Now, Laughing Jakal, have some of this crack, it will calm you down.

 

[Aviator7576]

retro pay

Champ...

For you and the rest of the "tax impaired", you don't have to file amended returns for those years unless you actually got paid the money in those years. The difference between retro pay and a signing bonus matters on the company books. Seems like fedex has a signing bonus that is close to a retro calculation. UPS signing bonus does not take into effect longevity in seat as well as overall longevity.

JMO

Aviator7576

BTW...congrats on the TA

 

[SNIZ]

Retro Pay Calculation

First of all, awesome job by our negotiating committee. I'm thinking if they are happy with the terms I'll vote yes.

Secondly, I looked at our last table position for retro pay. It says 7% x 1404 credit hours based on the Dec 2003 pay rates. IF we got that...then is the calc...1404 x current hourly rate x.07 x #years of service w/o a contract? For me that would be 1404 x 96 x .07 x 2(my time with the company)? Is that correct? Could use some help on that. Also heard during a recent hub turn brief by the MEC that table position was based on your current seat on date of signing.

Thirdly, after we all (me included) stop getting giddy about the retro pay, possible pay raise. I'll wager that the most important/valuable part of this TA will be the work rules/duty rig/daily min CR section and company contribution toward our health care costs. FWIW.

 

[active_herk]

VaB,

Just out of curiosity sake, let's say we are given a signing bonus instead of retro pay, but the UNION (not the company) tells us that the signing bonus is the exact same amount that the retro pay would have been, and that all the people who would have been afforded payment under retro pay will receive the signing bonus (for example those who have retired and those who have left for other reasons). Let's also say that they have negotiated it so that all the tax implications are the same as well. They have also ensured that retirement calculations (high 5, B plan contributions, etc.) are exactly the same. In other words, in the unions eyes it IS EXACTLY THE SAME except for the name, would you still be against it?