SmithBarney
Well-Known Member
our MGR, believes that the buyout will be at a Management level, although she does admit silently that there might be larger changes in the works.
Fred, Dave, MT3 and the October Surprise
- Thread starter MrFedEx
- Start date
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
After the flurry of information that came out last month, it is looking like any potential buyouts will be limited to HIGH "tenure" salaried employees. There was NO firm information on this, but the consensus is that salaried employees that have 25+ years with Express and are over 50 years of age, will be offered some form of incentive to leave. There has been no information come out as to how "generous" any potential early retirement package would be for these individuals.
As for wage employees, the "consensus" is that there will be NO form of buyouts. It is looking like Express is getting ready to do some targeted buyouts like they did in 2009 (locations where volume has collapsed), but no hard details on this. If you haven't experienced any dramatic reduction in volumes in your location, you probably won't see any any buyouts. When buyouts are offered to wage employees, the actual amount Express offers is pathetic - so don't think it is some form of "golden parachute". It is just enough to get the employee to "bite" on it - and potentially forgo any unemployment compensation.
From other things that I'm hearing, it is looking like Express is cranking up the disciplinary side of the attrition equation, to help shed some employees.
The "performance reminder" is making a big comeback, employees are getting OLCCs for what was previously trivial stuff. Employees whose actual work performance is GOOD are getting OLCCs and even performance reminders for little crap (attendance, punctuality, customer complaints, not securing vehicle at ALL stops - you name it). The squeeze is being put on - to hold employees to an absolute standard - or push them out the door with performance reminders (and yes, you can be fired for having performance reminders and committing another "offense" while they are active).
Part of the push for handing out OLCCs and performance reminders, is directly attributable to the elimination of the performance review. Employees know their pay increases AREN'T linked to punctuality and attendance anymore, so Express is losing that "control" they had over employees. So the OLCCs are flying, and performance reminders are just waiting for any continued "non-compliance".
Then once an employee is pushed out the door, mananement does NOT replace the individual, but eliminates the position and reconfigures work tasks among the remaining employees. This isn't just at a few locations, it is company wide policy now. So don't clock in late, don't clock in EARLY, secure your vehicle, keep your customers happy (you may have to kiss a little butt to do so). To put it bluntly, your employment is at risk if you get enough of these minor things going against you.
It is also looking like the sprinters that are being brought in are being HEAVILY placed onto routes operated by the AM part-timers (no real surprises there). I've asked if there is going to be any move to make AM part-timers "Courier-Handlers" (the operation of a sprinter vehicle DOESN'T require a DOT physical), and haven't gotten a definite response yet. This may be yet another part of the October Bomb - part-time new hires which will be expected to operate sprinters will be hired in as Courier-Handlers. I believe that there are current restrictions as to how Courier-Handlers can be used to run "regular" routes, but there is no reason to believe this will remain the same come October.
In all of this "squeeze" on the wage employees (going back to 2008, when the pension was terminated), it is looking like Express' strategy is to GRADUALLY implement change, and not do it as to create a massive upsurge in discontent. I know there is plenty of discontent already from Couriers who used to get 50 hours a week regularily, who are now only getting just under 40 (that is a 25%+ reduction in gross wages). The work isn't there - and in 2-3 months, there will be even less work. I have heard that they are trying to pull P2 off of part-time routes to keep the full time routes up to hours, BUT they are also pulling P2 off of full-time routes and placing it on part-time routes (IF possible), to eliminate OT liability for the full-timers. So route balancing will take into consideration whether OT will be incurred by a full-timer, and if the full-timer looks to go into OT territory for the day - they are pulling volume off and handing to part-timers or underutilzed full-timers if possible.
I asked about what potential impact that losing the USPS contract would have - my source didn't have a firm answer to this. Right now, the USPS contract basically provided Express with its profit margin last year - losing that revenue would place Express firmly into the red - and there would be NO WAY for Express to compensate for this. However, given the restrictions that exist due to TSA screening of air cargo on passenger aircraft, there isn't much potential for significant volume shifting that could go on there. This means that the air movement of USPS volume is left to two players - Express and UPS. My source suggested what may happen, is that USPS gets a contract that shaves 100 million a year or so off the payments that USPS gives to Express - and that would be about it.
There is also the issue of Express drop boxes outside USPS facilites that is under the contract. Express DOESN'T want to lose these locations (I know most Couriers would love nothing more than to lose these locations and not have to deal with the deluge of Ground pieces being placed into them). And yes, I believe that the placement of Express dropboxes outside of post offices where customers dump their Ground has a DELIBERATE INTENT behind it by FedEx... If Express had to move these drop boxes, customers might be inconvenienced enough to start using postal Express Mail service - Express knows this. So Express has a reason to cut the USPS a deal, if push comes to shove.
I do seem to remember a time when UPS had their dropboxes outside USPS facilites - when was this (if anyone can remember...)
There are "larger changes in the works", I'm just curious as to how someone can "admit silently" to such changes... A wink of an eye, write it on a piece of paper while saying nothing??? Just curious...
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I don't ever recall ever seeing any of our dropboxes outside of a Post Office branch.
Express Courier
Well-Known Member
Oh they are there. Believe me lol they are there.
El Morado Diablo
Well-Known Member
A lawyer from FedEx legal who was in our station recently admitted the reason FedEx eliminated the performance review was due to employees suing the company using the reviews against FedEx in court.
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
Are you sure this individual was an attorney? FedEx legal types wouldn't set foot in a station. The lowest place on the operational totem pole they ever show up is district offices.
I have NEVER heard of a FedEx legal type just showing up in a station - and DEFINITELY not ever answering questions put to them by wage employees - ESPECIALLY concerning areas of potential FedEx legal liability. Just doesn't happen....
This individual may have been in HR (they will show up on occasion in stations, they have to "show face" a couple of times a year) - and if they were with HR, they would know the reasons for the ending of the performance review system. But an attorney just popping up in a station and answering questions that involve issues of potential FedEx legal liability - I just don't believe it.
DOWNTRODDEN IN TEXAS
Well-Known Member
..
And for some reason, the HR people are like vampires, they make people uncomfortable but they don't know why they feel uncomfortable. That, and when they do show up, something bad is usually about to happen....just sayin
El Morado Diablo
Well-Known Member
He didn't just show up at the station out of the blue. He was not an HR employee, he came from FedEx legal. He was here to take part in a series of depositions after a former employee sued FedEx for wrongful termination.
It wasn't like he made an announcement about this to the entire work group. He was having a conversation with one person between depositions when he made the comment. He told this person that FedEx dropped the performance reviews because employee's who had been terminated were using their good review scores against FedEx in court.
Rhoderunner
Well-Known Member
This is interesting. The foresight put into this policy change with the impending changes speaks loud and clear !!!!
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
This is precisely why FedEx legal types usually DON'T show up at work sites...
This is the first instance I've heard when legal went to a station to take statements, RATHER than having the personnel come to the district office to give statements. The usual procedure is to have each employee that is to give a statement, drive to the district office, give their statement - then leave. The legal types keep a "controlled environment" this way.
Even in situations where multiple employees are to give statements, they still (usually) have them travel to the district office (at staggered time intervals), and give statements separately.
Is the station in question some distance from its district office??
This lawyer also seems to have a hard time keeping their mouth shut (what lawyers are paid to do). Admitting to someone that FedEx had liability incurred due to firing employees (who just happened to have "good" performance reviews) - just opens MORE potential for litigation.
I think this says more about the quality of individuals that Express is hiring to represent itself - than anything else.
El Morado Diablo
Well-Known Member
Ricochet1a
Well-Known Member
That explains it then... still, the lawyer opening his mouth like that - rank amateur.
DOWNTRODDEN IN TEXAS
Well-Known Member
Maybe they shared an office with our favorite "misrepresentative"?
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
SmithBarney
Well-Known Member
ever hear the phrase, 'silence speaks volumes' when you ask someone a direct question, and they basically turn and walk away... While it might be an assumption, it speaks volumes to me.
