Yellow | ReCap From YRC COO Hearing In Dallas.

[Northern Flash]

[quote author=john/nyc link=topic=78659.msg826628#msg826628 date=1272861995]
[quote author=Kennesaw Kid link=topic=78659.msg826298#msg826298 date=1272765002]
[quote author=Northern Flash link=topic=78659.msg826083#msg826083 date=1272720076]
But, in this context (COO), how would it have benefited them to have an increased count?

john/nyc,

It would have benefited them because the over inflated bill count would have allowed them to relocate more drivers, which would then get laid off as soon as they got to their new location, because the bill count wouldn't have supported the extra drivers. By the Union fighting them for an accurate number (which was reduced) they couldn't relocate as many positions and get rid of more drivers. The lower bill count protected jobs.
[/quote]



Thank you...I could not have explained any better myself....and the 10% reduction also kept Springfield open too!.....KK
[/quote]

I already know that the lower bill count helped us.

But

With the higher bill count they would have had to pay to relocate more men. They can lay as many off as they want without first paying to move them around. So where did they gain?
[/quote]I'm sure that the Union was trying to protect the majority of it's members by keeping the bill count number lower, which would mean that there wouldn't be as many people taking a transfer, then getting laid off anyway. I'm sure that there are a few people that would like to be transferred, just to get the relocation check and wanted a new city to live in, but for the majority of the members, they wouldn't want to take a transfer away from their roots, then get laid off anyway.

So where did they gain you ask:
The members gained by not getting relocated, only to eventually get laid off.
The company gained by not having to pay out relocation costs.

You're right they can lay off people whenever they want, but at least in this case they can't uproot as many lives before they lay them off. And in these same negotiations, there was language put in about if someone takes the relocation, they cannot be laid off.

 

[Kennesaw Kid]

Thanks NF!....KK

 

[John/nyc]

I am going to try this again.

When I say "they", I'm talking about management or the company.

Also, I guess I should have said: What did they hope to gain by having an inflated bill count? It doesn't make any sense that they would pay to move people around just to, then, lay those people off. Especially when they could have laid off without paying the moving expenses. Literally, what were they thinking?

 

[Johnnyr33]

And in these same negotiations, there was language put in about if someone takes the relocation, they cannot be laid off.

That isn't a guarantee that your going to work. They could leave you sitting at home, forcing you to quit due to lack of money and losing any chance of a recall when they did have the work for you.