10 step pay raises

[refineryworker05]

Which is exactly why the onus to save for retirement was put on the workers. Traditional pensions were guaranteed money. Not to mention with the 401k system the workers help corporate exec's get wealthier with their contributions. Those contributions are used to buy stocks in large amounts when dividends are due. The demand drives up the price and the exec's cash in stock options. Major corporations hold public meetings with Wall Street firms represented every year. Listened to one back in I think it was around 2011-12. Fred S referred to the Wall Street firms as "our partners." Exactly why they give matching funds to 401k contributions. System is making them rich(er).

This is all true.

The 401k was really designed for individuals with much higher than normal incomes. I think Kodak lobbied the government to give the income of two highly paid execs this special tax consideration and not be taxed. That's why its called the 401k because that's how its designated in the tax code.

The median American worker earns $28,000-$29,000. It is going to be nearly impossible for most workers to take money out of that in large enough amounts over many years to save a substantial amount of retirement money and the actual reality of 401k's bares this out. They don't work for most workers.

 

[Oldfart]

You made a completely irrelevant point. How one individual person's 401k performs is not a point worth discussing.

The data on 401k performance for most workers is very clear. It is terrible. It doesn't provide adequate retirement savings.

This is how I look at pensions and 401k's.

A pension that pays out $20,000 per year is the equivalent to a 401k with $500,000 because the 401k can run out of money, financial advisors suggest not taking out more than 4% of your 401k in any year. So that 4% of $500,000 is $20,000

A pension that pays out $40,000 a year is equivalent to a 401k with $1,000,000.

Now what percentage of workers ever reach having $500,000 or more in a 401k?

401(k) Plan Savings - Is Your Aging Workforce Saving Enough for Retirement? - Carlson Capital Management

A recently published U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis of a 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances found that 41 percent of U.S. households age 55 – 64 have no retirement savings. 61 percent have less than $50,000 saved for retirement and only 9 percent have more than $500,000 in retirement savings. In fact, the GAO calculated that of the 59 percent that has money saved for retirement, the median amount saved is $104,000.1 This equates to about $310 per month in an inflation-protected annuity for the average 60 year old person.

I see 2 things in your argument to comment on.
1st. Not a whole lot of pensions pay 40,000 per year to be worth the 1,000,000 401k. Certainly not the employee that make roughly 30k per year. IF he got a pension on that salary, it might be 15 to 18k per year.

2nd. If a man retired with 500k in an 401k and withdrew 4% a year, baring a collapse in the market, that money will last him 30 years and he will leave a good bit to his children. You failed to figure the return that 401k will get WHILE he is drawing it. If he only pulls out 4%, even a conservative return should be 4% or more. He is only pulling out his return and most of the balance is there the entire time.

Many 401k have seen returns of 12 to 15%, except for 2008. Your pension will never see that rate of increase and will not lower your yearly tax bill.

Sure a pension is great, but my pension pays about 50% of our yearly salary of 10 years ago. That isn't gonna allow me to enjoy my retirement like I want. My 401k added to my pension will allow me to lose very little of my working income and will allow me to live like I want to in retirement.

 

[dezguy]

People keep mentioning I have 2 pensions and I am topped out and get mad because I have it better than them and then you call me a loser. Kind of ironic. I thought we weren't supposed to call people names. I quit calling tex a tool, yet you want to call me a loser.

The only one bringing up you having two pensions and being topped out is you.

 

[vantexan]

I see 2 things in your argument to comment on.
1st. Not a whole lot of pensions pay 40,000 per year to be worth the 1,000,000 401k. Certainly not the employee that make roughly 30k per year. IF he got a pension on that salary, it might be 15 to 18k per year.

2nd. If a man retired with 500k in an 401k and withdrew 4% a year, baring a collapse in the market, that money will last him 30 years and he will leave a good bit to his children. You failed to figure the return that 401k will get WHILE he is drawing it. If he only pulls out 4%, even a conservative return should be 4% or more. He is only pulling out his return and most of the balance is there the entire time.

Many 401k have seen returns of 12 to 15%, except for 2008. Your pension will never see that rate of increase and will not lower your yearly tax bill.

Sure a pension is great, but my pension pays about 50% of our yearly salary of 10 years ago. That isn't gonna allow me to enjoy my retirement like I want. My 401k added to my pension will allow me to lose very little of my working income and will allow me to live like I want to in retirement.

Which is fine for you. But a big group of us didn't get the pay you got and thus couldn't fund our 401k like you could. Furthermore we were forced into an inferior pension. At the very least they could have let us stay in the traditional for 25 years so that we could get half of our pay, then convert us over. And this is outside of the 401k. At least the young couriers starting out today will be topped out by their 30's. They'll be able to contribute more for a long time. But that doesn't help a large group of us who saw our traditional plan stunted and didn't receive enough pay to effectively fund the portable plan or the 401k. Those plans work better when you are compensated well. $18.17hr after almost 15 years doesn't qualify as adequate pay to fund my future in my book.

 

[59 Dano]

What exactly IS he doing about it?

He's giving them the amount of effort that he deems appropriate for his amount of pay.

Did they not tell people what they were to be paid when they were hired? If they didn't, I can understand people's complaints. If they told you the pay you would earn and you took the job, apparently you agreed to do the job for the salary they offered.

Many were told various things when they were hired. Our pay/raise structure has changed several times over the years.

You mention working a $20 level for $16. Does that mean that people that make MORE than $20 an hour are OVERPAID?

If the shoe fits.

 

[59 Dano]

I just had a new hire ride with me. He showed me the packet they gave him. The pay scale was in that packet. I clearly shows the progression that was shown in the top of this post. NO WHERE was 6.5% raises in there.

Talk about telling lies!!!

That pay scale was implemented in October of 2016.

 

[59 Dano]

I have been with the company twice as long as you and even though I have only been at 1 station, I have had dozens of managers and I have seen or experienced very little of what you claim.

You sound a lot like the little old lady who runs the cash register at my favorite restaurant. She's been there for at least 30 years and is part of the family that owns the restaurant. She thinks all restaurants are just like hers and that anyone who has had a bad experience working at another restaurant probably deserved it.

 

[59 Dano]

But I don't mind saying that the corporate culture is rotten at it's core, causing mgrs to do things to keep their jobs, climbing over anyone to get at money. Not all of them, but a very high percentage.

Managers don't do those types of things because of the corporate culture or money (there's no money to be had doing that type of stuff), they do those types of things because they're poor managers.

 

[Oldfart]

The only one bringing up you having two pensions and being topped out is you.

Na. Tex brings it up in nearly every post. I just daid it now to get him started again.

 

[Oldfart]

That pay scale was implemented in October of 2016.

Correct. My post was answering people that CLAIMED the company was promising 7-10% raises to new hires. That is simply not true. The raises are there for everyone to see. More proof that people keep posting things that are simply not true.

 

[59 Dano]

Correct. My post was answering people that CLAIMED the company was promising 7-10% raises to new hires. That is simply not true. The raises are there for everyone to see.

::::banging head on keyboard::::
THOSE PROMISES WERE BEING MADE PRIOR TO THE NEW PAYSCALE. NO ONE SAID THAT THEY ARE STILL DOING IT.

 

[Operational needs]

Correct. My post was answering people that CLAIMED the company was promising 7-10% raises to new hires. That is simply not true. The raises are there for everyone to see. More proof that people keep posting things that are simply not true.

The raises are there for all to see NOW. They were never visible to us hourlies until this 10-step plan came along. Well, except right before we got a raise a manager would look it up in the system if we asked.

 

[vantexan]

Managers don't do those types of things because of the corporate culture or money (there's no money to be had doing that type of stuff), they do those types of things because they're poor managers.

There's plenty of that. But don't tell me the company doesn't put heavy pressure on them to perform. Whenever directors come by I've seen mgrs hang on their every word like they're God. And seen mgrs turn from groveling sycophants to angry psychos just as soon as the director left.

 

[vantexan]

Na. Tex brings it up in nearly every post. I just daid it now to get him started again.

No I don't. I don't care what you make. I care what I made. The company's unfairness to midrange has nothing to do with topped out couriers. Unless the topped out guy is a major A-hole.

 

[Oldfart]

::::banging head on keyboard::::
THOSE PROMISES WERE BEING MADE PRIOR TO THE NEW PAYSCALE. NO ONE SAID THAT THEY ARE STILL DOING IT.

NOPE. 2 people said that managers were STILL promising 7 to 10% raises. Keep banging that head though

 

[Oldfart]

And they still tell new hires this 6-10% raises every year...

There you go Dano. You and Smith can bang your head on the keyboard. Smith said they are still promising new hires 6-10% raises

 

[refineryworker05]

I see 2 things in your argument to comment on.
1st. Not a whole lot of pensions pay 40,000 per year to be worth the 1,000,000 401k. Certainly not the employee that make roughly 30k per year. IF he got a pension on that salary, it might be 15 to 18k per year.

2nd. If a man retired with 500k in an 401k and withdrew 4% a year, baring a collapse in the market, that money will last him 30 years and he will leave a good bit to his children. You failed to figure the return that 401k will get WHILE he is drawing it. If he only pulls out 4%, even a conservative return should be 4% or more. He is only pulling out his return and most of the balance is there the entire time.

Many 401k have seen returns of 12 to 15%, except for 2008. Your pension will never see that rate of increase and will not lower your yearly tax bill.

Sure a pension is great, but my pension pays about 50% of our yearly salary of 10 years ago. That isn't gonna allow me to enjoy my retirement like I want. My 401k added to my pension will allow me to lose very little of my working income and will allow me to live like I want to in retirement.

Again, you are talking theory. I am discussing reality. There is actual data about 401k's and how they are working for people as a substitute for pensions which is how they are being sold yo the public. There is data about pensions and how they work for people.

Objectively there is no comparison. Pensions provide much better retirement income.

Very very few workers amass $500,000 in their accounts. Heck very few amass $250,000 in their account. Even a pension that pays out $10,000-$15,000 a year would be equal to a 401k with $250,000-$375,000. Again objectives very few workers ever reach that in their 401k.

The 401k as a main retirement vehicle is a huge failure and pensions by comparison are not.

The reality is that 401k's can without doubt run out of money. They are a defined benefit which means there is a finite set amount. A pension can last for the rest of your life. There is no comparison.

401k's were designed to be used by individuals with much higher then normal incomes. They really don't work for most workers making the median wage.

I didn't even get into the actual design problems with many 401k's. From high fees, few choices, lack of an employee match, etc.

 

[Oldfart]

Again, you are talking theory. I am discussing reality. There is actual data about 401k's and how they are working for people as a substitute for pensions which is how they are being sold yo the public. There is data about pensions and how they work for people.

Objectively there is no comparison. Pensions provide much better retirement income.

Very very few workers amass $500,000 in their accounts. Heck very few amass $250,000 in their account. Even a pension that pays out $10,000-$15,000 a year would be equal to a 401k with $250,000-$375,000. Again objectives very few workers ever reach that in their 401k.

The 401k as a main retirement vehicle is a huge failure and pensions by comparison are not.

The reality is that 401k's can without doubt run out of money. They are a defined benefit which means there is a finite set amount. A pension can last for the rest of your life. There is no comparison.

401k's were designed to be used by individuals with much higher then normal incomes. They really don't work for most workers making the median wage.

I didn't even get into the actual design problems with many 401k's. From high fees, few choices, lack of an employee match, etc.

Lack of a match? We get 3.5% to our 6%. A 401k should not run out of money if it is invested properly. Like my example. If you take 4% yearly and draw a conservative 4 or 5%, you are basically pulling interest only from the account. You seem to forget the account will still be invested and growing while you are drawing from it.

Lack of choices? We have plenty of choices with. Vanguard and they have an excellent track record.

I have never heard anyone say a 401k is a poor option for retirement, other than you.

While a pension is a great tool because it was provided by the employer at no cost, I know very few people who are able to comfortably retire with a pension alone. In many instances, the 401k is the backbone on the retirement process. If you want to live on 50% of your working income when you retire, depend solely on your pension. If you want to totally replace your working income in retirement, you are gonna need a good 401k in place.

 

[FedExMan]

This thread was started by FEDXMAN. After the 1st page it became a pissing match between a few members with nothing contributing to the OP's first post. I suggest that if you have nothing to say contributing to the OP's question, start your own thread.

Yes, this is Browncafe. The MODS may not give a care what goes on in the FedEx Discussions.

Since this is the best forum on the web for FedEx issues, we need to focus on answering posters with quality info, not rants diverging from the OP's thread.

Thanks, but I have noticed most all topics here go off course but it is always entertaining.

 

[Operational needs]

Thanks, but I have noticed most all topics here go off course but it is always entertaining.

It's gets old very quick.