I groosed $93,000 last yr as a dock worker at Yellow when they closed the gates July 30 my gross for the yr was $46,000. I was a high seniority guy they would call for Sat and Sunday punches. I would rest Sat and hit them up for 10 or 12 hrs on a double punch that with the 10 to 15 hours I got during the week. Yellow was very good to me I was able to pay off a lot stuff because I knew the ship was sinking. The last 2 1/2 yrs I put the long hours in to not have car notes.
Yellow | It looks like the fat lady is about to sing!
- Thread starter Hotboy Ice
- Start date
Real Teamster
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 516
Sperg, where do you get these figures? I can't vouch for CS H&W, but out west that H&W was about $12/hour for the first 40 hours/week. Our total compensation (wages, 401k (Western Pension kicked us out years ago) and H&W was slightly over $42/hour for the first 40 hours. Overtime doesn't pay fringe benefits which is why it was usually cost effective to have a guy on overtime that to have another guy.
My wife had major surgery a few years ago. The retail hospital bill was $57,000. The contracted payment to the hospital was $17,500. The surgeon was around $5,000 but who's counting? Our out-of pocket? $110 including two pre-op and two post-op office visits. Our dental?? Paid darn near all of it.
I also think your $700 million is off the mark. It's way more than that. Payroll took over half the revenue, fuel was the next largest expense. Here's the kicker, and I don't know the scheme at the non-unions here. Those H&W funds were non-taxed That's huge! I don't know how Estes, R&L, Saia, FedEx, XPO and all the others work that. Are the H&W premiums that the employee pays BEFORE tax?? If so, that directly compares. If the premiums are "post-tax", it becomes an itemized deduction that is subject to a 7.5% exclusion. That is comparatively NOT a good deal.
Real Teamster
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 516
Your math seems correct. What you're missing though is "risk management" If, and only if that employee could be assured of only taking that "hit" every seven years, OK fine. But that's why it's called insurance. When you have insurance, that buffers the unexpected and unpredictable. When the insurance company does that for a LOT of people, they are spreading the risk out amongst everybody, knowing that statistically, only a certain percentage are going to incur that kind of cost. That's the entire premise of how insurance works.
Absolutely. It's why 90% of the people are "paying" for much more insurance than they need or should really desire. The actuaries have done all the math. The insurance companies will come out ahead and, collectively, those paying the premiums will come out behind.
You should be able to opt out of these Cadillac plans in exchange for a higher wage. Let the individual decide what's most prudent for them.
Real Teamster
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 516
Ex, I think your "90%" is inaccurate. Your argument has merit for sure, but consider this: a) If people were able to opt for high deductible plans as they can at many of the non-unionized shops, how many of them do it? b) How many of the ones who do so have severe regrets when something bad happens? c) How many of these people (who are assuming a significant portion of their medical expense risk) actually set aside reserve funds from that higher wage to be prepared for the possibility of a medical catastrophe? The answer to all of these questions is "hard to tell".
As I'm sure you're aware, not all of our brethren have the intellectual capacity to make educated, well-reasoned and informed choices that are in their own overall long term best interest. That is where having these choices made on their behalf and collectively comes into play. At day's end, are they better off? Probably! Does that come with a hefty price tag? Yes! Do some of our brethren pay less attention to taking care of themselves because they have that "Cadillac" insurance? Sadly, I believe there's merit to that question. I wish they would ALL take really good care of themselves. That would reduce the costs of that "Cadillac" insurance.
I'm not sure of the origins of "Cadillac" health insurance, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess the UAW has something to do with it. Indeed, in greater Detroit the largest healthcare system is Henry Ford. My brother-in-law, a Ford/Mazda retiree, just spent four weeks in Henry Ford Bloomfield Hills. Part of that time, he was in intensive care. He's home now and told me yesterday he probably won't even see a bill. Is that crazy expensive for Ford? Without a doubt! Does he have the intellect to have made these risk management choices for himself? I doubt it. He has lots of company in that regard amongst his peers.
So, there's really no "pat" answer to this issue.
Maybe, let's say 95% are paying too much/buying more than they need. ;)
Answers to your questions: (a) not as many as should (b) when something bad happens most would regret their decision. But 90+% won't have something bad happen and would be happier with their decision. (c) not as many as should be.
Your points are valid. My argument is that those that could do better should have the choice to do so. The IBT won't allow it though. They can proclaim superior compensation package and folks lap it up. Just one more nail in the employers' coffin.