What's new

XPO | Xpo Union Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
SKHVNRG.jpg
 
Hollywoodz said:
Allow me to say that my goal certainly was to make a profit. However, I never allowed myself to consider profit as my only goal. My primary purpose was to enhance the lives of all those surrounding me and still maintain a healthy profit. To those I had on my payroll, I always paid my guys top end of the current wage PLUS 20%. To those owner operators who worked for me through the years, I always paid them 60% of gross when everyone else was paying 40 or 50 %. Every dock worker from AZ Warehouse to Lin Warehouse to Arrowpac to St. George to Maersk Line , Sealand and Berth80 and every single airline in JFK airport got a minimum gratuity of 5 dollars every time they loaded one of my trucks. Often the gratuity was greater depending on the revenue I expected to earn on that load. My liquor tab at Christmas was well over 3K, as I made sure to personally thank everyone who contributed to my success.

I often loaned money to guys working 60 hour weeks at 8.00 an hour with no expectation of ever getting that money back. More often than not, I was repaid. I would see guys come to work in guard shacks in the middle of winter with no winter coat and I made sure that they got one the next time I saw them.

I was as generous as I could afford to be because I have compassion for those who's assistance allowed me to be successful. And I was incredibly successful BECAUSE of those people who helped me along the way.
Click to expand...


I commend your attitude, and don't want to sound snarky, but I think I see why you couldn't afford to keep your employees.

Maybe both of you would have been better served if you weren't as generous, and a little more greedy.
 
Single payer thousands of insurance co office worker claim denier evil people jobs will be lost and health insurance c e o will only be able to have a yacht on one coast the good thing is if somebody becomes ill they wont lose their home
 
ED FORCE ONE said:
Single payer thousands of insurance co office worker claim denier evil people jobs will be lost and health insurance c e o will only be able to have a yacht on one coast the good thing is if somebody becomes ill they wont lose their home
Click to expand...
Or life savings. Maybe give home to a son or daughter and/or help a grandchild through college.
 
Hollywoodz said:
Universal single payer health care (Medicare for all) would be a windfall for all businesses who provide health care to their employees. Yes, their tax burden would be higher, but they would save, on average, $400.00 per week per employee, a bit less than 500 million a year. I hope I did the math correctly. I'm sure someone will let me know.

With that kind of windfall, just imagine the salaries for which we could bargain.
Click to expand...
You would end up with less money in your pocket because you will involve the government in running something. That always makes stuff cheaper, right? I mean they have done such a great job with the postal service and social security
 
Hollywoodz said:
Universal single payer health care (Medicare for all) would be a windfall for all businesses who provide health care to their employees. Yes, their tax burden would be higher, but they would save, on average, $400.00 per week per employee, a bit less than 500 million a year. I hope I did the math correctly. I'm sure someone will let me know.

With that kind of windfall, just imagine the salaries for which we could bargain.
Click to expand...
Ask the citizens of Canada or England how they feel about their government administered health care
 
CCXdriver said:
I commend your attitude, and don't want to sound snarky, but I think I see why you couldn't afford to keep your employees.

Maybe both of you would have been better served if you weren't as generous, and a little more greedy.
Click to expand...

Not sure, you may be right about that. However, I may regret some of the things I did for the wrong reasons, but I will never regret the things I did for the right reasons, even though, in the final analysis, they may have been wrong. Does that make any sense? By the way...Great Isaac Asimov quote...
 
LTLIndentured said:
You would end up with less money in your pocket because you will involve the government in running something. That always makes stuff cheaper, right? I mean they have done such a great job with the postal service and social security
Click to expand...

Please google these things and get an opinion other than right wing sources. You are way off base on all three.

The Post Office was doing just fine until Republicans passed a bill that forced them to fund benefit programs for their employees who haven't even been born yet. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe their employee benefit packages required to be paid through 2075.

If the government just left Social Security alone and not borrowed billions of dollars from the fund, it would be doing just fine as well. The retirement of the baby boomers has certainly been a drain on the fund, however, that is easily fixed with a small incremental raise in contributions. Did you know that all income beyond 117K is exempt from Social Security with holding? They could make the fund solvent FOREVER if they simply lifted the cap and made all income subject to with holding.

Medicare for all would be a boon to the middle class as well. Of course you would pay more in taxes, but the return on your higher taxes would be nothing compared to what we pay every day for our health care needs. You may be young and healthy, but you'll be old one day and the cost of health care by then may be beyond your means. There are tens of thousands of people in this country TODAY who will die because they cannot afford health care.

Look at it this way. Medicare operates on 3% administrative cost. Private health care operates on 25% administrative cost. Since the total cost of health care in this country exceeds 6 BILLION dollars a year, savings right off the bat would amount to 1.32 BILLION dollars. In addition, I am on Medicare. My provider is Humana and when I need to see a doctor, I call a doctor, not a government official. It's true that my doctor has to participate in my plan, however, the government does not provide health care. They simply administer the plan. You would not end up with less money in your pocket. It's simply not true.
 
upnorth said:
It works, but not as efficiently as it could.
Click to expand...

Not sure you may agree, but the system is still better than what we have here in the states. The Law of Large Numbers states that the more people who participate in the plan, the less expensive it will be. When everyone participates, costs are sure to be at a minimum. In addition, Canadians die, it's not because they couldn't afford their health care premiums or they were denied coverage for a pre existing condition. Universal single payer works in nearly every developed country in the world and even in some poor, underdeveloped countries. People simply have to get used to the idea that someones heart attack gets priority over the pain in your big toe.
 
ED FORCE ONE said:
Answer a letter us post office new york to california 49 cent see ir fed ex will do that for america
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Post Office provides a service unlike any other company in existence. The goal of the Republicans is to financially destroy all of the entities that serve the commons, so that their fat cat friends can privatize these services and make even more trillions off the guys like you and me. The minute any public utility become privatized, costs go up and service goes down. Just look at what they are trying to do with the internet. Not exactly the same deal, but the principle is the same. Remove net neutrality so that companies can control what you see and how quickly you can see it. Want faster service and access to a particular website??? Sure says AT&T...just pay 100 dollars more per month and you can have it all.
 
Hollywoodz said:
Exactly. The Post Office provides a service unlike any other company in existence. The goal of the Republicans is to financially destroy all of the entities that serve the commons, so that their fat cat friends can privatize these services and make even more trillions off the guys like you and me. The minute any public utility become privatized, costs go up and service goes down. Just look at what they are trying to do with the internet. Not exactly the same deal, but the principle is the same. Remove net neutrality so that companies can control what you see and how quickly you can see it. Want faster service and access to a particular website??? Sure says AT&T...just pay 100 dollars more per month and you can have it all.
Click to expand...
Agree. Here in the Northwest, the Federal government has their eye on privatizing the Bonneville Power Administration, which provides extremely cheap, green and renewable (providing there’s water going through the dams) energy. Can you imagine? Electricity is something everybody uses. Putting it in the hands of greedy billionaires is not wise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top