We are already severly shorthanded. Lets hurry up and start firing people. Typical YRC Mgt. makes no sense move.
Yellow | New Absenteeism policy????
- Thread starter excalman60
- Start date
We are already severly shorthanded. Lets hurry up and start firing people. Typical YRC Mgt. makes no sense move.
axlethedriver
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Say I go to level 5 equals 5 weeks 4 weeks vacation 5 sick days. Equals 10 weeks... Does this start annually. 10 weeks off year is not bad..
axlethedriver
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
We are not management. We are employees. Management should make this a place where a person would want to work. They have messed up a lot of good jobs and people. Let's not forget how we got in this mess
axlethedriver
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
The teamsters worker has bailed out this cash hog again. And Yes they owe us. Don't let them forget it.
Sgt. Schultz
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 2
This is the kind of behavior of big business that got the unions started back in the 20s and 30s. For some reason management wants to go back to the days of yesteryear and treat employees like crap all over again. One of the big reasons unionism got started was to create a 40 hour work week and stop employees from being forced to work 70 and 80 hours a week even when they were sick or fatigued. It`s amazing that so many people voted for an agreement that still allows the employees to be treated like crap and the company you agreed to save by your concessions, treat you like you`re some kind of 3rd class citizen. This company should be grateful for the bailout they got from teamster employees, yet they continue to abuse them in everyway they can. Might be a good time to vote in a real union with the members best interest in mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
snake eyes
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 81
Once refi is complete by end of month it will then be ratified so get those U.E out of your system.
excalman60
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Just heard from a buddy at work. It starts tonight at midnight at 135.
Ya we had paperwork on the tables in line haul saying it started 2/9/2114
I wish it was that easy, but the union is not the problem here. The members are!!! Until our union members start speaking out...Demanding that our leaders start doing their jobs...something they are getting paid really well for...and that is to represent their members. Until our members start getting upset...Nothing is going to change. Leadership from the IBT, all the way down to the small locals needs to be changed and voted out. We need to vote in Teamsters Leaders that will have their members best interest and priorities put before their own... Its our union, and it's time we start taking back what is ours!!!
^^^ what he said^^^^
Something that was very disturbing to me was Friday morning as I waited to get my paperwork at Pittsburg I watched 3 people start calling shipper after shipper to tell them they were not coming to pick their freight up. Some of it was a skid or 2, some of it was trailer loads. I asked one of the people calling "is this a busy week or day?" They replied "no - just a normal day" I asked "you have anybody laid off? reply "no" I asked "are you trying to hire anyone?" reply "I don't think so" I asked "how many pickups do you miss on average?" reply "about 50 a day"
I am not a very smart man but I know if you are missing 50 plus pickups a day & pissing those shippers off we are not going in a good direction.
The trailer I had picked up in the yard had been sitting there for at least a couple days so it was going to be late wherever it was going.
I am not a very smart man but I know if you are missing 50 plus pickups a day & pissing those shippers off we are not going in a good direction.
The trailer I had picked up in the yard had been sitting there for at least a couple days so it was going to be late wherever it was going.
YRC management don't have a clue what they are doing!
The evidence is all around us to see!
Don't forget they know everything about moving freight:LMAO::LMAO:
Sgt. Schultz
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 2
If YRC is getting so many pickups in a day that they can turn them down, the discounts YRC must be offering must be tremendous. Much of YRCs service is less than timely and soon these shippers will get so upset with these missed pickups they will use another carrier regardless of discounts. As I`ve said before, YRC isn`t in the freight business, they`re in the money business. If they would take care of customers by picking up and delivering the freight in a timely manner the money would flow in. It would be a great place to start a trucking company.
Damage free freight delivered on time?
What a concept!
I'm gonna let that bounce around in my head for a while.....
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
393.2 Ill or fatigued operator
No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle, while the driver's ability or alertness is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired, through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for him/her to begin or continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle. However, in a case of grave emergency where the hazard to occupants of the commercial motor vehicle or other users of the highway would be increased by compliance with this section, the driver may continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle to the nearest place at which that hazard is removed.[35 FR 7800, May 21, 1970, as amended at 60 FR 38746, July 28, 1995]
Question 1: What protection is afforded a driver for refusing to violate the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?
Guidance: Section 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) (49 U.S.C. 31105) states, in part, that no person shall discharge, discipline, or in any manner discriminate against an employee with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment for refusing to operate a vehicle when such operation constitutes a violation of any Federal rule, regulation, standard, or order applicable to Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) safety. In such a case, a driver may submit a signed complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
PORTLAND, Ore. – The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration ordered Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc. to compensate a worker who refused to drive in violation of safety regulations. OSHA has also ordered the trucking company, based in Auburn, Wash., to stop retaliating against workers who refuse to drive trucks while too ill or fatigued to safely operate vehicles at its facilities.
"Punishing workers for exercising their right to refuse driving assignments is against the law," said David L. Mahlum, OSHA's acting regional administrator in Seattle. "A company cannot place its attendance policies ahead of the safety of its drivers and that of the public."
OSHA determined that the attendance policy of Oak Harbor Freight Lines punishes drivers by issuing them notices of "occurrences," which can result in disciplinary action or termination for failing to drive, regardless of possible safety concerns. OSHA is requiring the employer to compensate the employee for lost wages and has ordered the company to remove any occurrences from the driver's personnel file. The employer will also be required to post a notice for drivers to read and learn about their lawful rights under the STAA.
393.2 Ill or fatigued operator
No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle, while the driver's ability or alertness is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired, through fatigue, illness, or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for him/her to begin or continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle. However, in a case of grave emergency where the hazard to occupants of the commercial motor vehicle or other users of the highway would be increased by compliance with this section, the driver may continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle to the nearest place at which that hazard is removed.[35 FR 7800, May 21, 1970, as amended at 60 FR 38746, July 28, 1995]
Question 1: What protection is afforded a driver for refusing to violate the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?
Guidance: Section 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) (49 U.S.C. 31105) states, in part, that no person shall discharge, discipline, or in any manner discriminate against an employee with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment for refusing to operate a vehicle when such operation constitutes a violation of any Federal rule, regulation, standard, or order applicable to Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) safety. In such a case, a driver may submit a signed complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
PORTLAND, Ore. – The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration ordered Oak Harbor Freight Lines Inc. to compensate a worker who refused to drive in violation of safety regulations. OSHA has also ordered the trucking company, based in Auburn, Wash., to stop retaliating against workers who refuse to drive trucks while too ill or fatigued to safely operate vehicles at its facilities.
"Punishing workers for exercising their right to refuse driving assignments is against the law," said David L. Mahlum, OSHA's acting regional administrator in Seattle. "A company cannot place its attendance policies ahead of the safety of its drivers and that of the public."
OSHA determined that the attendance policy of Oak Harbor Freight Lines punishes drivers by issuing them notices of "occurrences," which can result in disciplinary action or termination for failing to drive, regardless of possible safety concerns. OSHA is requiring the employer to compensate the employee for lost wages and has ordered the company to remove any occurrences from the driver's personnel file. The employer will also be required to post a notice for drivers to read and learn about their lawful rights under the STAA.
Kronos will issue discipline.
And who might I ask authorizes Kronos to issue discipline?
Is that at the local level or national level?
With "22,000, 26,000, 30,000?" employees, and the cost of mailing out 2 certified letters for each violation, it sounds as though YRC has plenty of cash.