FedEx Earnings More than Double, Plans 1,700 Layoffs

[Magic_Marker]

It's this recession guys. We have to cut you loose.

Wait? What profits?

You guys still get paid enough afford internet?

Well fuck.

Shipping company FedEx (FDX), often viewed as a bellwether for the economy, reported that its fiscal first quarter earnings more than doubled to $380 million, or $1.20 per share, from $181 million, or 58 cents per share, it earned a year ago. But results were a penny shy of analyst expectations and shares fell nearly 3% in premarket trading.

"Strong demand for our services resulted in higher volumes and better revenue per shipment at FedEx Express and FedEx Ground," said Chairman, President and CEO Frederick Smith. "This increased demand comes from improved global economic conditions," he added, as well as the improvements the company made during the downturn.

In its fiscal 2010 first quarter ended August 31, FedEx revenue jumped 18% to $9.46 billion from $8.01 billion the previous year. Also, it reported operFating margin of 6.6%, up from 3.9% the previous year.

1,700 Workers Are Out of Luck

FedEx said the strong earnings were the result of strong FedEx International Priority growth at FedEx Express, continued growth at FedEx Ground and a benefit from the net impact of higher fuel surcharges. But expenses related to employee compensation programs, pension, and medical cost, as well as aircraft maintenance expenses, and an operating loss at FedEx Freight dampened the quarter's solid results.

The company also announced that it would combine its FedEx Freight and FedEx National LTL operations effective January 30, 2011 to increase efficiencies and reduce operational costs. While FedEx said this would significantly improve profitability in the segment by 2012, the move will also result in 1,700 job cuts as it shuts 100 facilities.

Going forward, FedEx raised its projected earnings in the second quarter to $1.15 to $1.35 per share in the second quarter, but that was still below analyst estimates of $1.37. FedEx also raised earnings for fiscal 2011 to a range of $4.80 to $5.25 per share, up from the company's previous estimate of $4.60 to $5.20 per diluted share.



Sure they made a lot of money, but they'd make even more money if you lost your job, can't argue with logic! (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/fedex-earnings-more-than-double-plans-1-700-layoffs/19636166/)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Oh those pesky compensation programs, pensions and medical costs! Humanity's greatest enemy.

[Fifthfiend]

"Analyst expectations" are one of the favorite infinitely movable goalposts used to excuse any ghoulish, greedfucking act of excess as somehow being a necessity for a company's survival.

[Magic_Marker]

Let me put it to you this way:

Before Firing You:

http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/01/scrooge_mcduck_raining_gold_lg.jpg

After Firing You:

http://www.achickfornick.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/scrooge_mcduck.jpg

So you see, the extra savings went toward a good cause.

[Magus]

Guys, they have to maximize their profits now because they may not be making those kinds of profits ten years from now! Just like with gas prices! Sure, there's a shit load of excess gas sitting around, but you know that in ten years the supply is going to be down and then they won't be able to make as much money! Well, they will by raising the price, but maybe they won't. Maybe. I guess.

Anyway you totally need to give FedEx a break, they have to maximize profits now so that later they'll be able to not quite maximize their profits but still break even with only something like 8 billion instead of 9 billion. Duh.

[Amake]

Those 1 700 people had better get a severance of 117 000 dollars each. Otherwise they're clearly just getting shafted for bringing the company profit. That's not going to encourage the remaining employees to do their best.

I wonder how many of them are going to actually die because they no longer have a job. Stress-related accidents, illness, fucking starvation, it's quite possible. It it's more than three people, it's fair to call Fedex a corporate psychopathic mass murderer.

[Pip Boy]

Maybe I'm interpreting the article wrong, but it seemed that the people they're laying off are people in divisions of the company that were operating at a loss and needed to be downsized.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Unfortunately for the land of rainbows Unicorns and candy, the purpose of a corporation is to make money.

Now they may have made a lot of money this last time around, but that doesn't change that their system was bloated, inefficient and in some cases overly complicated.

Cutting down on these areas, even with the profit margin is not a malicious act, there is no man sitting at the head of a large table in a massive throne like chair wringing his hands as he cackles at the suffering of his workers. It's just the best move to make sure they keep being successful, which by the way would keep the rest of their employees paid and happy.

[Magus]

Except of course that they make said money on the backs of their employees and out of the pockets of consumers, who are rightly critical of the fact that in a time of burgeoning profits they are firing people, especially since jobs are incredibly scarce right now. It should encourage everyone to not work for FedEx or ship with them, which will hurt their profits in the long term. So it's more along the lines of "See if I ship with you, then."

So like it's not so much that we live in a land of unicorns so much as a land of hatred and vengeance.

[01d55]

Maybe we should tax the fuck out of rich people and provide pensions and unemployment insurance to everyone as a public service so that this kind of thing is not such a big deal.

[Archbio]

This wouldn't have happened if those workers had better work ethic.

[Magus]

Maybe we should tax the fuck out of rich people and provide pensions and unemployment insurance to everyone as a public service so that this kind of thing is not such a big deal.

But that would be like, COMMUNISM. The end goal of corporations is to turn a profit, obviously this should be every individual's end goal too! Screw everybody else, we gotta make more money than the other guy.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Unfortunately for the land of rainbows Unicorns and candy, the purpose of a corporation is to make money.

Now they may have made a lot of money this last time around, but that doesn't change that their system was bloated, inefficient and in some cases overly complicated.

Cutting down on these areas, even with the profit margin is not a malicious act, there is no man sitting at the head of a large table in a massive throne like chair wringing his hands as he cackles at the suffering of his workers. It's just the best move to make sure they keep being successful, which by the way would keep the rest of their employees paid and happy.

Hang on, isn't the goal of corporations to make unsustainable short term rises in stock prizes so the people who make the decisions get huge bonuses?

[Doc ock rokc]

They are not going to make any money now. With the shit they are doing I wouldn't be surprised if they start dropping in stock. I know I few companies will drop them to keep their rep. and average users will use UPS

[Kim]

And they will declare it proof that they needed to fire those employees, because people who run companies are douchebags.

[Bifrost]

Maybe we should tax the fuck out of rich people and provide pensions and unemployment insurance to everyone as a public service so that this kind of thing is not such a big deal.

You do realize that rich people already pay 95% of all of America's taxes and there's a large chunk of the population (can't remember the exact amount; more than 10%) that doesn't pay taxes at all, right?

[Magus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Distribution

Some[who?] argue that the current income tax system, which is the government's largest revenue source, is too progressive and redistributive.[36] In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue.[37] However, as of 2004, the top 5% hold 59.2% of wealth. The top 1% of income earners paid 25% of the total income tax revenue.[38] Again however, the top 1% hold 23.5% of wealth. Forty seven percent of Americans pay no federal income tax,[37][39] which raises moral concerns regarding wealth redistribution and the economics for controlling the size and spending of government. Note, though, that this percentage does include some people without job income (e.g. children, retirees) along with the low-income workers to whom this moral hazard applies.[36]

Too half-assed to look up something other than Wikipedia but shit has citations, soooo...you're wrong. Next time at least do some half-assed research before jumping to the conclusion that "rich people play 95% of the taxes". While it's true that 47% of the population isn't paying federal taxes (a number which is somewhat misleading due to this including children and old people), they're still paying state, local, and sales taxes, not to mention the fact they work in the rich people's factories and offices to make them their money.

So yeah.

[Wigmund]

I don't really pay income taxes :D
Getting credits for tuition and loans and being poor as fuck rocks!

Though I do still pay the 10+% sales taxes the state has on most everything, along with some property taxes, car tag fees and so on. So life's not quite free yet.

It'll be great if I become rich, then all this won't affect me as much and then I can bitch about how I'm having to pay so much (which I can afford) while those obviously lazy slobs who make minimum wage get tax refunds. Ah, to be rich and conceited :3:

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You do realize that rich people already pay 95% of all of America's taxes and there's a large chunk of the population (can't remember the exact amount; more than 10%) that doesn't pay taxes at all, right?

Oh dear. Also rich people provide jobs so if they didn't have money nobody would be employed! Oh noes!

[Ryanderman]

I may be missing something, but I'm not seeing how this:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Some[who?] argue that the current income tax system, which is the government's largest revenue source, is too progressive and redistributive.[36] In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue.[37] However, as of 2004, the top 5% hold 59.2% of wealth. The top 1% of income earners paid 25% of the total income tax revenue.[38] Again however, the top 1% hold 23.5% of wealth. Forty seven percent of Americans pay no federal income tax,[37][39] which raises moral concerns regarding wealth redistribution and the economics for controlling the size and spending of government. Note, though, that this percentage does include some people without job income (e.g. children, retirees) along with the low-income workers to whom this moral hazard applies.[36]


In any way contradicts this:
You do realize that rich people already pay 95% of all of America's taxes and there's a large chunk of the population (can't remember the exact amount; more than 10%) that doesn't pay taxes at all, right?

Bifrost never specified what the statistic he was referencing considers to be "rich" people. Why are you assuming it's only the top 5% of income earners?

[Wigmund]

Those 5% make $160,000 per year (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html), then as the table shows it drops pretty dramatically so that over 50% of people in the US make less than $32,000 per year

[Ryanderman]

Those 5% make $160,000 per year (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html), then as the table shows it drops pretty dramatically so that over 50% of people in the US make less than $32,000 per year

Ah. That makes sense. Thank you.

[Magus]

'Cause rich people are a tiny 5% of the population, own 53% of everything, and yet seem to complain the most about paying taxes, even in the past ten years when the tax situation was incredibly good for them, not to mention that even poor dirt farmers are paying an incredibly regressive sales tax on everything they buy (except, in one or two states, food and clothing, if they are lucky, but only PA and a couple of other commonwealths have that exception).

So if I'm not exactly pepped up to go figure out if rich people are only in the top 5%, it's probably apathy. But I am right anyway, so there.

[Magic_Marker]

Also here's more science!

Rich People Save Their Tax Cut Instead of Spending It. (http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/09/16/rich-people-save-tax-cuts-instead-of-spending/)

Here's How Much The Top Marginal Tax Rate Has Been Since 1913 (http://www.voteview.com/images/Top_Marginal_Income_Tax_Rate_1913-2003.jpg)

Too Bad Money Only Buys You Happiness Until $75,000 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hG00l3mD223XhqS4JGOHvBB3KUowD9I2UA3O0)

Since having all that money doesn't make them any happier, they don't really need it, now do they?