What's new

Yellow | Freight Levels at your barn

Where is 653?I noticed since the coo was anounced.Up to two weeks prior to the proposal meeting.The freight flow slowed.I think its diliberate.Always does before a coo
 
Why would loads to southern California out of Maybrook and Carlisle go anywhere near Charlotte and or Atlanta?
clydesdale said:
loads coming out of 135 and 123..and going. to southern cal. ..are not going though cnc and atl any more ...call Ted Russell let him know whats going on!!!
Click to expand...
 
Gateway said:
Why would loads to southern California out of Maybrook and Carlisle go anywhere near Charlotte and or Atlanta?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing Gateway. But it would not totally surprise me either if it was happening. Like a few years back when the Zollars crew came up with the "velocity network", and frt from the Chicago area would go to Indy to go to Kansas. When I asked why it did not go to St. Louis or Springfield, they answered, because Indy loaded them direct. I then asked did frt going to Kansas picked up in St. Louis area go to Indy, then to Kansas, they did not answer me.
 
the 640 and 821 I was running to Atlanta must of been because of weather.....so many of those loads,,,, I thought it was our work,,,,oops!!
 
Docksteward said:
Hey yrc-atm, Our local supplement does not address the training of casuals, even with men laid off. We do have a local agreement of how it is to be done. I proposed a idea of how to get more of our laid off guys in when the company needs them but they (YRC) chose to pay the price to train new people. If you work for YRC, common sense isn't a part of the process. DS
Click to expand...

What do you mean train? No fkn way should you be allowing them to even consider casuals with regular employees on layoff. I don't work for yrc but I am a steward at holland. If we had guys on layoff and they brought in casuals, even to train, there wouldn't be an open seat In the lunchroom with all the card playing going on!
 
yrc-atm that's right they have over the years MADE us train casuals with 100s in lay off . better check your last mou if you don't like it.
and many have refused to do so and been threatened with dismissal . local says we have to because failure to follow a direct order can get you walked out .
 
longblade said:
yrc-atm that's right they have over the years MADE us train casuals with 100s in lay off . better check your last mou if you don't like it.
and many have refused to do so and been threatened with dismissal . local says we have to because failure to follow a direct order can get you walked out .
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, failure to follow a direct order/insubordination is not one of the contractually enumerated causes for immediate dismissal. If the local allows that, they should be taken to court.
 
They tried it up here and when they realized they were about to be hit with a 72 hour notice, laid off men were back the next day. Whats the difference between training them and working them?
 
with pay about what 7.50 an hour the add on the h/w its big money.
3 different breaks and its been the same at all they order we refuse and we get told by locals we have to do what we are told.
you are right trip its only a warning . then what about the other 6-7-8 letters you get that week to go along with that warning.?
 
longblade said:
with pay about what 7.50 an hour the add on the h/w its big money.
3 different breaks and its been the same at all they order we refuse and we get told by locals we have to do what we are told.
you are right trip its only a warning . then what about the other 6-7-8 letters you get that week to go along with that warning.?
Click to expand...

That's the problem. A continuation of warning letters can ultimately result in a dismissal. They show a pattern and not just a single occurrence.

I don't understand the issue with training casuals verses working casuals. I would certainly have an issue with casuals working when people are on layoff (unless voluntary layoff or no laid off available for work possibly), but what exactly does the training involve? I'm not familiar with that situation.
 
Triplex said:
That's the problem. A continuation of warning letters can ultimately result in a dismissal. They show a pattern and not just a single occurrence.

I don't understand the issue with training casuals verses working casuals. I would certainly have an issue with casuals working when people are on layoff (unless voluntary layoff or no laid off available for work possibly), but what exactly does the training involve? I'm not familiar with that situation.
Click to expand...

Is the company is paying those casuals to be trained, I'm sure they are not there for nothing! Then it is a problem!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yrc-atm said:
They tried it up here and when they realized they were about to be hit with a 72 hour notice, laid off men were back the next day. Whats the difference between training them and working them?
Click to expand...

Your choice! Train casual labor the right way OR the wrong way!
 
longblade said:
with pay about what 7.50 an hour the add on the h/w its big money.
3 different breaks and its been the same at all they order we refuse and we get told by locals we have to do what we are told.
you are right trip its only a warning . then what about the other 6-7-8 letters you get that week to go along with that warning.?
Click to expand...

$11.90 here in California. We have 3 lay-off employees working alongside 3 casuals for 4 hours.

Tell me that isn't a slap-in-the-face!

Do ANY of the laid-off guys file a protest???
 
not for the extra board 1to 2 trips a week put us in the poor house had to wait 54 hours to get out wheel board suck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top