Cost saving’s For direct deposit pay stubs, FedEx could use plain paper (.02 per sheet) instead of actual check stock. Glossy paper cost about .08 each, so my guess is that the heat sensitive, multi-color stock paper that FedEx prints on, cost much more. The cost savings in paper alone would be significant. FedEx would also save in shipping cost, due to less weight and paper. We would only need about 8 X 8, no need to use a space for the non-check part.(we all know that "this is not a check" ) Or, instead of even printing on regular paper FedEx could setup up an e-mail server (encrypted), which could be access and printed from home. It would save paper, envelopes, plus a lot of time, by not having managers sort though and passing out 200,000 checks a week. Of course Employees without home computers will be able to print out pay stubs at work. FedEx could start a direct deposit campaign, which would enlighten the work force of the cost savings of not printing nine million checks a year. At .06 a sheet the savings would be well over a half million dollars a year. Also for employees without a checking account ( we have some who pay check cashing business to cash there checks ) they could be issue a Mac card which will enable them to withdrawn funds from any money access machine in the world. Which will save those employees check cashing fees. They will still be able to get their pay stubs at work with a company PC.

Mr. Smith is spot on. BUT... In the coming administration, federal investment needs to be focused on funding research into expanding currently viable renewable energy sources, as well as dramatically increasing funding to electric, plug in and hybrid vehicle technology. Let the private sector run with the tried and true energy sources. Government's role needs to be in plowing the roads to allow private industry to do what they do best. A good start would be in dropping the corporate tax rates on capital investment. During a recession, the GOVERNMENT knows they need to invest in infrastructure; but what about private industry? Drop the tax on capital investment and ANWR, shale and offshore will happen much faster. And the side benefit will be; every business in America that actually creates jobs, will be in better shape to invest in things that creat jobs. (like Aircraft, trucks, vans, and service centers).

It is absolutely imperative that the US get back to drilling for more oil and build refineries. Of course investing in more nuclear and alternative energy are a must. Our dependence on foreign oil has been brought about by environmental regulations that have choked out oil production and the closing of refineries since the 1970s. We shot ourselves in the proverbial foot by allowing the environmental noose to tighten to the point of practically begging OPEC to increase oil production when supply gets tight and prices skyrocket. It is widely known that fossil fuel is the most efficient form of energy we have to fuel automobiles,etc, so why is it that we have to spend decades waiting for technology to fine-tune these alternative energy sources that have so far proven to be inefficient and are very expensive to produce? The US could be energy independent if the US government would stop catering to the Environmental groups and pay more attention to the economic growth and national security of this nation by drilling here and drilling now.

I have been with fedex for 17 years and I find we must take the first R from the three R's,that's Reduce, more seriously Eliminate paper timecards. Time cards should go into your inbox then with one click it goes directly to your manager's .That would reduce our demand for paper that would leave a lot more trees in the ground in order to filter the air we breathe...Just a thought

Dear sir, I couldn't agree with you more on that. We have to be very careful on how the ideas are being pushed forward. We have to let the free market works its own way to achieve that. Many unintended consequences with well intention government actions and mandates have made a lot of things worse than they were.

The public is being lead to believe the fallacy that in the near future many automobiles will be electric hybrid vehicles. However, this future vision of electric vehicles everywhere may not come to fruition soon because it depends on batteries. We have very reliable and efficient electric motors easily capable of running a vehicle with little or no power loss as compared to an internal combustion engine. The problem is we have no efficient means of storing the energy needed to run them. The batteries needed to meet this goal do not exist. There has been relatively little change in battery technology in over 200 years. In the last few years, we have made a few advances in battery technology mainly driven by mobile devices such as cell phones and laptops. These advances in battery technology are not readily adaptable to meet the demands of running vehicles. Until new types of batteries capable of storing the energy to meet the driving demands of the consumer appear, only the rich and tree huggers will buy them. Who wants to pay $40,000 for a Chevy Volt that will only travel 40 miles on a charge? In addition, there is the cost of the infrastructure needed to charge these vehicles. It does not exist. We have to build it from the ground up. The same problem exists for any alternative energy source such as CNG, propane, and hydrogen for fuel cells. President elect Obama is going to jump-start the economy by spending on infrastructure but I have not read anywhere where he will be improving the infrastructure of alternative fuels sources. Until we have an energy source to run our vehicles that is as convenient as a local gas station, the majority of people will not embrace the technology.

To add some additional considerations beyond whatever is already talked about, I want to think about what it does to the world if US reduces its oil usage. 1. The good thing is that we will cut petro dollars to the bad guys who want to fund bad politics like religious fanaticism. 2. On the other hand we leave a lot of cheap oil ( if there is a lot left in the gulf ) for the rest of the world and that means we will be subsidising the growth of China and others who can continue to utilize the Arabian resource where oil production costs are very low. It may not be bad to help the development of rest of the world ( in fact it is good for all of us ), but why should US pay disproportionately and way ahead of the rest of the world and foreswear the cheap resource? 3. We also have to continue to foster inter - dependence and hence a certain leverage on the global economy instead of talking independence. It is hard work, but with out inter - dependence we will have no control to influence or moderate the behavior of our trade partners ( both good and not so good ) 4. Alternative energy is a must, but it has to be achieved through superior economic considerations and that is what the market place is supposed to do and it will in due course. If the petro dollars have not flowed into gulf like they did there wont be much of purchase power in those regions of the world to buy our exports and we wont be able to grow. 5. If we do force an energy solution then we have to watch out for unintended consequences ( always there ) with out the jingoism of independence. As the global economy matures there will be lot more inter-dependence and security through inter - dependence ( hopefully ). On the other hand any hint of isolationism from a leading country like USA will set the clock backwards on global economic integration. 6. When oil was selling at $147, it is not the oil producers who are making all that money. There are quite a few intermediaries for sure and that includes traders, speculators and such. So overall even though we all agree on alternatives, we have to make sure we do not give up any strategic advantage to the rest of the world ( especially to those regions that do not support our value system ). As always economic cycles will set the price of energy. I am just stating these things, but would like to see alternatives as competition in the market place. Also remember, as the USD moved more than 60%, oil price has come down 60%. That means we have to balance our trade and budgets and keep a strong dollar. Just my two cents.

As a North American Fedex employee(Canadian)we all have a stake in both Canada and America's success on the Environment,Fossil fuel dependencies,etc. We do breathe a lot of the same air and share a lot of water so we better take care of it!!We as a company have the tools to make this work as demonstrated by our own Solar projects in Oakland,Whitter,Fontana,Solarwall technology in both sides of the border. Geothermal in Switzerland and Cologne Germany's solar project due for completion in 2010. Hybrid technology mergers between Companies(ie.Cummings and Freightliner) growing with all of the fleet (Freightliner,Sprinter,and Econolines)Its just getting an equal balance of Government incentives,Efficiency,and affordability to make this feasible on a Fedex Global scale.

In response to the 12/5 post in which Andrew expresses hope for FedEx to incorporate Green building practices -- that is currently happening. You can read more about these locations. Whittier CA: http://news.van.fedex.com/whittier Oakland, CA: http://news.van.fedex.com/node/7380 Cologne/Bonn, Germany: http://news.van.fedex.com/colognesolarpower Good things are happening!

That is a great idea about using hybrid vehicles for Fedex. We could use natural gas in 18-wheelers that has dedicated routes. The engines could be converted cheaply. Then use the hubs sites as natural gas station, Fedex could slowly convert trucks into using natural gas. Until the natural gas station becomes more available. The electrical grid my not be able to handle the recharging of hybrid vehicles as soon as creating natural gas vehicles