ABF | Overtime

nooksack said:
Does anyone know when it becomes cost effective to hire another driver instead working existing driver overtime.
Sounds like a good "Ask the President" question for the next BYLINES!!:shades:
 
nooksack said:
Does anyone know when it becomes cost effective to hire another driver instead working existing driver overtime.

I don't know the numbers but once you figure workmans comp,SSI,and monies paid to the teamsters for pension and bennies....
It is probably more economical to pay the OT.

Then you have to concider...if and when it slows down...you may have more employee's than neccessary..and no one wants to be laid off.

Just my 2 cents....
 
Butt Kisser

I just finished reading that ask the prez question. First thought...must be near contract time. Then I looked at my ABF 401k that started with the Carolina takeover and am glad oh boy for my teamsters pension! No one ever brings up the "guarantees" of an alternative retirement plan,unlike what I'm sure Robert Young dragged off to his ranch. I don't own stocks so I'm not privy to that. After 24 years with the co. I know who is at the top of the food chain and it's not a driver/salesman.
 
nooksack said:
Does anyone know when it becomes cost effective to hire another driver instead working existing driver overtime.
That's a very good question there nooksack.......I know this was directed to the drivers, but I've been fighting it out with RDWY for the past few years over the very issue on the dock. Our problem is that our laid off men are working 40+ hours a week and the company refuses to put them back on "full time". What's the difference you may ask?? Most weeks they work 10 hours on and 8 off, and that gets old real quick. The best way I can figure it, the more hours you work the less on paper they have to pay for H&W. They don't care about the more you work the more fatigued you get, decreasing your productivity and increasing your chances for injury.:horse: I had to get that off of my chest. DS.
 
nooksack said:
Does anyone know when it becomes cost effective to hire another driver instead working existing driver overtime.
hey nook
lets start over
there are many factors here like the other guy stated, you would think that they would be considered but in reality it seems they are not
a tm ususually does the simple math
hourly 22.73 + approx $12 H&W = $35 per hour
ot pay aprox $34 an hour so now there is no real savings, at least nothing to speak of
in the past with lower H&W costs it was a real consideration
a tm usually does not figure in costs that affect the company on a whole but seems to only truly concern himself with the costs that is affecting his numbers at his terminal
items such as wear and tear on the trucks , excessive hours and its impact on worker safety are probable costs and not true costs unless someone gets hurt and even then they don't make the connection, at least right away
from what i see there is no reason for what they are doing to dock stewards guys unless of course in all liklihood the supes are just breaking balls:Sign-Cow:
 
Docksteward said:
That's a very good question there nooksack.......I know this was directed to the drivers, but I've been fighting it out with RDWY for the past few years over the very issue on the dock. Our problem is that our laid off men are working 40+ hours a week and the company refuses to put them back on "full time". What's the difference you may ask?? Most weeks they work 10 hours on and 8 off, and that gets old real quick. The best way I can figure it, the more hours you work the less on paper they have to pay for H&W. They don't care about the more you work the more fatigued you get, decreasing your productivity and increasing your chances for injury.:horse: I had to get that off of my chest. DS.
hey ds why doesn't your local grieve that
they should prevail and get at least some of the guys back to active status:Banane01:
 
hillbilly frog said:
How did ya like that butt kisser one this month Harleydad?

hey hillbilly sometimes i think we are our own worst enemy
this guy had to be put up to it by management:paperbag1:
 
Top