Discussion in 'Fedex Freight' started by BumpDraft, Feb 2, 2018.
Just about anyone can drive forward, we need some drivers that can back up. Bahaha
Well, when the disparity disappears, they’ll just outsource all the line work due to a lack of people willing to work nights for city pay.
You really think road drivers can’t back up?
RC has decided henceforth you shall be called dimwit50.
Bottom line is people run the road for money, others choose city because the hours are generally favorable and they don't wish to age prematurely and that last part is fact. You have to be willing to cash in some of your time here on earth if ya want the linehaul big bucks. Is the trade off worth it?
I took his post to mean drivers in general...every road driver ran the city at some point in their career
While that may be the case over yonder, most of the old Viking Line Drivers were smart enough to start out in Line Haul.
Not really Red, I can count on one hand the times I actually touched a piece of freight in my 35 yrs.
I can still back better than any city driver, with the exception of the notorious BillyLo.
I agree on the money trade off, but there is also a physical labor (and avoidance thereof) component, as well.
On life span, I'm not so certain (in LTL)... It seems there are a lot more old timers, able to continue running road well into their upper 60s and beyond. I know of very very few city guys pushing that age.
Sorry, I forgot about you old, old, old timers!!
Lol back up twice a day with lines showing you if your straight that must be difficult
Guess I should be honest, not really sure if our tractors had a reverse.
There were lines to guide us making our sets and triples as many as five times a night?
Back in your day, reverse would've been putting the left stick to the left and down, blip the throttle three times, put the right stick in the middle and up, tap the brake ten times, wait for air pressure to come back up, proceed to backup looking straight ahead and listening for crunching noises or you finally hit a fixed object....
I really hate to get into this sensitive topic, but we're not about to start avoiding the uncomfortable stuff now. There are some valid points to consider.
1) The road requirements have generally evolved/improved quite a bit from what it once was. The pay scale model has remained fairly constant despite the significant improvements in the road experience.
2) Market forces indicate that wages for road positions are certainly within (and in some cases beyond) expectations demanded by the workforce. The fact that in many/most cases road positions are filled from within, often with a waiting list, show this to be true.
3) The current trend, in distribution of increases, shows that the intent is to balance the wage required, to fill the positions. The gap can be narrowed (in this way) ever so slightly, over time, with relatively little disruption.
4) The gap between road and city will likely never be closed entirely, and it should NOT be. Not without the fantasy of complete automation.
5) Don't underestimate the effect road costs have on the use of Purchase Transportation. It is a factor that must be a part of the discussion.
There are too many variables to dissect and offer a solution to each, here (right now). Example: The ridiculously short mileage of some night runs vs the highest mile day runs. Should there be a premium paid for certain less desirable assignments? It can get complicated, as we often point out the extreme examples on each end of the spectrum.
Under the Corporate structure we operate, increased spending on wages and benefits are allocated in a specific amount, annually. The powers that be are tasked with how best to spend that dollar amount. There are certainly wish lists, and the decision has to be made where to put it. Wages, retirement benefit, etc. The list is always there, but the goals are fairly consistent. Best bang for the buck, while satisfying the needs vs wants, in the market for workers. All of this under the umbrella of cost control.
Priorities have to be determined, dictated by current market.
Sorry to mention it, but it's relevant. During the Union debate, it became pretty obvious to anyone paying attention, the general consensus from road drivers was that it was never about the money (wage). The city side, in general, seemed to have a different view. Suffice to say that some attention was/is needed in THAT area.
Same factors apply to the GPD (pay grade) of the various locations, although the process for addressing that issue (at that time) seemed to follow a different process. We have to believe that emergency funding was involved in that decision to bump 56 locations up to the next level.
Bottom line, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the process dictates addressing the needs based on the (BOD) approved funding. When and where staffing becomes more difficult, that is where the funding will go, based on the degree of need.
I would hope that overall pay can eventually get to a point high enough to justify the one time hit that will be required to fund a much needed GPD correction for many locations. Such a correction will have to be offset by a smaller gain at the higher scale centers. That will make for an uncomfortable discussion. One that will be necessary at some point. Just like this one.
The (gpd) really has nothing to due with quality of pay. it's all based on retention pay how little can we pay and keep a low over turn. Granted we make a good wage. If we had a single board bid once a year. Everyone would be more concerned with a fare wage for everyone.
This would also make retirement fare in the end seeing are company pension is also based on salary. If we all give 20 or 30 years we all are working for the same goal. We should received the same in the end.
Could you please repeat that, I'm a slow reader.
You don't really expect any of us to read all that do you?
Swampy is like E.F. Huton...when he talks, people listen!!
He is not a flip flopper like some that's for sure.
Separate names with a comma.