Goooooo Fedex!!! Earnings are in!

[skykid]

I think I see exactly the big picture. Why should only the pilots get the raise?
How about the the truck drivers, loaders, secretaries, operations, custodians?
It's not just about the pilots. Pretty soon the record profit for that year is wiped out.

The big picture is the pilots have a great NEGOTIATING tool. This has nothing to do with what is right, or how your or my little side business does it (although sharing in the good and bad times is the way it ought to be, but unions get paid what they negotiate). The pilots have a much better case than if the company broke even or lost money last year.

FedEx mgt will be pointing at the pathetic compensation levels for passenger carriers and claiming they can't afford to pay so much over what everybody else is making. That is even less logical.

With FedEx making that kind of money, I would imagine the union at least has a shot at gaining public support.

I would love to see FedEx pilots get paid at a level that reflects their experience and expertise, then at least we could look up and see what we should be making.

 

[klhoard]

.
.
.
I don't think the pax carrying pilots were saying "Hey, the cargo guys deserve good raises, also" back in 1999-2000. . . .
.
.
.
We'll get what we negotiate. Citing record profits just removes a reason for the company to say "No". . .
.
.
.

 

[Rattler71]

.
.
.
I don't think the pax carrying pilots were saying "Hey, the cargo guys deserve good raises, also" back in 1999-2000. . . .
.
.
.
We'll get what we negotiate. Citing record profits just removes a reason for the company to say "No". . .
.
.
.

And good luck to you!

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Rattler71 owns a company but apparently never even took Econ 101. What a moron.
When a company is making record profits, and simple cost-of-living raises aren't given and the company is trying to shave all benefits, there is something wrong. So you're saying employees' buying power and standard of living should decline in a company's time of prosperity? Your same company will most certainly be looking for givebacks in times of hardship. Wake the f--- up.

 

[Rattler71]

Rattler71 owns a company but apparently never even took Econ 101. What a moron.
When a company is making record profits, and simple cost-of-living raises aren't given and the company is trying to shave all benefits, there is something wrong. So you're saying employees' buying power and standard of living should decline in a company's time of prosperity? Your same company will most certainly be looking for givebacks in times of hardship. Wake the f--- up.

You have missed the whole point of the post. And why the personal attacks? You can't make a point without getting personal?

I never said the companies shouldn't give periodic raises. I never said companies shouldn't give benefits.

The whole post was about pilots screaming that if a company had a good year and made profits, the company should share or some will be calling for a strike.

Geez dude, chill. You are gonna give yourself a heart attack.



Rattler 71

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Geez dude, chill. You are gonna give yourself a heart attack.

Serenity now.....serenity now...

 

[Rattler71]

Serenity now.....serenity now...

Right on bro

 

[JethroF15]

You have missed the whole point of the post. And why the personal attacks? You can't make a point without getting personal?

I never said the companies shouldn't give periodic raises. I never said companies shouldn't give benefits.

The whole post was about pilots screaming that if a company had a good year and made profits, the company should share or some will be calling for a strike.

Geez dude, chill. You are gonna give yourself a heart attack.



Rattler 71

How can you tell someone is`screaming from a post on the internet? Just curious.

 

[Rattler71]

How can you tell someone is`screaming from a post on the internet? Just curious.

Uhhh....when they put the words in in big red letters.... all caps....gives the illusion anyway.


Rattler71

 

[Mr Zog]

Rattler,

Using your same argument, should a company that is going bankrupt ask there employees for a pay cut? Maybe we should quit this experiment called Capitalism and move towards Socialism. "Is this Russia, Danny? This isn't Russia." FedEx's motto is People, Service, Profit; at least that is what they claim. The people made the profit. I think they should be rewarded. Call me crazy.

 

[Rattler71]

Rattler,

Using your same argument, should a company that is going bankrupt ask there employees for a pay cut? Maybe we should quit this experiment called Capitalism and move towards Socialism. "Is this Russia, Danny? This isn't Russia." FedEx's motto is People, Service, Profit; at least that is what they claim. The people made the profit. I think they should be rewarded. Call me crazy.

Don't most companies when they are going bankrupt ask employees for pay cuts? That is all I have heard and read on the news the last 2 years.

Rattler71

 

[Rock]

Rattler, how dare you make a series of posts that exhibit both logic and common sense. But when you say the company is not "entitled" to share its profit, I think you mean not "obligated". And while you are being accused of being a socialist, I think you clearly have a better grasp of capitalism than a few other folks on this site. The bottomline is, in a capitalist system people are allowed to choose. That includes what a corporation chooses to pay its employees, and whether those employees choose to work for that wage. FedEx knows that if it doesn't pay its employees sufficiently, they will quit. If they quit, FedEx will have to hire and train new employees. That costs a lot of money, and hurts the bottomline. So does hiring employees that can't perform the job effectively. Having trained monkeys who are willing to work for bananas fly all your jets into the ground doesn't help your bottomline either.

Ultimately, I think FedEx will do what it needs to to keep its highly skilled employees wearing purple. Its latest quarterly earnings seem to indicate it has a pretty good grasp on the rules of supply and demand and keeping the customer satisfied....whether those costumers are individuals on EBay, or 40,000 MD-11 Captains.

 

[Rattler71]

Rattler, how dare you make a series of posts that exhibit both logic and common sense. But when you say the company is not "entitled" to share its profit, I think you mean not "obligated". And while you are being accused of being a socialist, I think you clearly have a better grasp of capitalism than a few other folks on this site. The bottomline is, in a capitalist system people are allowed to choose. That includes what a corporation chooses to pay its employees, and whether those employees choose to work for that wage. FedEx knows that if it doesn't pay its employees sufficiently, they will quit. If they quit, FedEx will have to hire and train new employees. That costs a lot of money, and hurts the bottomline. So does hiring employees that can't perform the job effectively. Having trained monkeys who are willing to work for bananas fly all your jets into the ground doesn't help your bottomline either.

Ultimately, I think FedEx will do what it needs to to keep its highly skilled employees wearing purple. Its latest quarterly earnings seem to indicate it has a pretty good grasp on the rules of supply and demand and keeping the customer satisfied....whether those costumers are individuals on EBay, or 40,000 MD-11 Captains.

Yes, thank you, "obligated" is a better choice of word. Where did I put that thesaurus?


Rattler71

 

[Goose17]

another thought

I understand your obligated viewpoint, but let me share this. Many employees are stuck in a job for one reason or another. Some because it is seniority based and cannot take their seniority elsewhere, others for many other life's reasons. So, lets assume for argument sake you can't leave. A well compensated employee tends to be a more satisfied with work (in my opinion) than a lessor compensated employee. Look, for instance at United flight attendants. After multiple cuts, penion losses, and work rule changes to increase productivity, do you think they are all happy employees? Do you think this gets translated into how well they perform their job and subsequently United's customer satisfaction? Heck yes. I am not picking on United, you could simply put any big company in it's place. My point is if you take care of your employees, they in-turn will take care of the company. If you crap on your employees, guess what?

With FedEx making tons of cash and trying to stuff it into record dividens and alike, how do you think it makes us pilots feel when their initial offer is concessionary - followed up by a 3% pay raise.

Understandable so, they are not obligated to do anything. As an employer, I would not want to "give away the farm", but I would want my employees to feel appreciated and well compensated. I think that would be good motivation for an employee group to perform well vs. keeping all the rewards at the top and tightening the screws on the workforce.

Goose17

 

[Rattler71]

In the good ole U.S. you always have the right to ask for more. The company has the right to ask for less. Everyone compromises somewhere in the middle. I also think sometimes, noone is ever satisfied.

I read a joke a while back. The pilots were begging for money or they would go on strike . The company says, ok, we will give each of you $300,000 a year, the best benefits package there is, and you only have to work on Tuesdays. One pilot speaks up, you mean every Tuesday?

And one other thing, noone in the U.S. is ever stuck or forced to work anywhere they are not happy. There are always choices, maybe tough choices, but always choices.


Rattler71

 

[klhoard]

. . .<snip>. . you mean every Tuesday?. . .<snip>. .

.
.
.
I like that. . . . ROFLMAO
.
.
.

 

[Rock]

Goose, I think you raise some good points, but I agree with Rattler that NOBODY in the USA is forced to work for anybody. We can all leave. And some do when the cost isn't worth the reward. As pilots we have a product to sell. It is our ability to safely fly aircraft from point A to point B. That product took all of us a long time to develop, but it is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. When FedEx no longer pays me what I think I deserve, I'll leave. I've watched many of my furloughed airline bro's start second careers that are so lucrative they've chosen to blow off the airline industry even when they get called back. Anyone smart enough to make it into the majors in the airline industry is smart enough to do just about anything. I just got my last flight physical from a former TWA pilot. In the meantime, since I have almost no experience negotiating contracts, I've hired ALPA to do its best to convince FedEx to pay me the high end of what they think I'm worth. Hopefully ALPA will do its job well. If I do't like the result, I guess it will be time for me to start sniffing around for plan B, C and D.

 

[Goose17]

We are in a business where people would do the work at poverty level just to build time, for the fun of it, or whatever other reason there is. I thoroughly understand it is a free market and we can all leave if we want to. The non-transferable seniority system makes that a tough pill to swallow though. But, I agree it is still an option. Fortunately we have a union negotiating on our behalf backed by the pilot group and I don't think we will end up working at a poverty level.


I guess if I was trying to make a point, the company is rolling in the cash. The top brass is extremely well compensated (as they should be) and more and more money is given to the stock holders. I think it is time to spread the wealth a bit. It sure would create a more motivated workforce.

Many opinions on the issue though.

Goose17