FDX Leave of Absence?
01-26-2009, 11:22 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
Meanwhile, a line slug at FedEx with 25 years and a decent high 5 can retire with $130K per year, and yet the rocket scientists here don't want to take it. Many ask why won't the company offer early retirements to reduce overmanning. Sorry, but why should they? We (ALPA) fought for the age change to let guys work longer and now we're going to ask to let guys retire early so we can reduce overmanning? We shot ourselves in the foot and now have to live with it. Thanks again Dave.
JJ
01-26-2009, 11:36 AM
#42
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
No. I am simply saying that it is hypocritical to argue for an early retirement when we have demonstrated by our actions that we don't want to retire even at the normal age. In addition, I am saying that I can understand why the company doesn't want to entertain this particular means to reduce the current, alleged overmanned condition we "enjoy". And for much of that we can thank DW and our good buddy Prater. We lobbied to change the law, and it has hurt the junior members of the organization, and will continue to for many, many years. Asking now to let some retire early while others fly until they die is unrealistic.
Last edited by FXDX; 01-26-2009 at 12:08 PM.
01-26-2009, 02:02 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
I see, so for you, solving the problem takes a back seat to being able to b!tch about it. Fair enough. As I see it, the first "issue", that of the Age 65 rule change, took place prior to the second "issue", that of the "F" word, and although one does effect the other, they are/were separate issues. Seems to me that any solution to one will help the other. The union is not "asking" to let some retire so that others can "fly until they die", they are trying to not only help the junior guys stay on the property, but also to entice the older/super-senior guys to leave, thereby enhancing everyone else's seniority and therefore quality of life.
JJ
JJ
01-26-2009, 02:46 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
01-26-2009, 03:58 PM
#45
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
I see, so for you, solving the problem takes a back seat to being able to b!tch about it. Fair enough. As I see it, the first "issue", that of the Age 65 rule change, took place prior to the second "issue", that of the "F" word, and although one does effect the other, they are/were separate issues. Seems to me that any solution to one will help the other. The union is not "asking" to let some retire so that others can "fly until they die", they are trying to not only help the junior guys stay on the property, but also to entice the older/super-senior guys to leave, thereby enhancing everyone else's seniority and therefore quality of life.
JJ
JJ
Can we ask? Sure. Why not. But to expect it, well might as well pray to the Easter Bunny too.
Looking for ways to mitigate some of the damage done by the age change, after lobbying for it, is simply closing the barn door after the horses have run free.
03-07-2009, 01:23 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Tool Shed Investigator
Posts: 168
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
