What's new

XPO | Pay increase??

Razorblade said:
Are you slipping? Have you considered total compensation? Employer paid healthcare, pensions or 401K matching. It's all part of the total pay package.
Click to expand...
I have considered that for both for union and nonunion because that’s what you have to look at not just the hourly rate. Someone can say they make $42 an hour but they don’t get O/T till after 50 or they contribute a gob sum of their insurance cost weekly.
Take for instance some union carriers make less hourly but they don’t pay for retirement or healthcare. When you add that in their total compensation exceeds ours .
When you look at some non union carriers the hourly rate is higher but they don’t get overtime after 8 or 40 and that pay a large amount of their insurance premium and fund their own retirement.
 
Last edited:
$40hr
Ot after 8hrs
Free, GOOD Healthcare. Zero deductible for in network, $5 max for Rx.
401k match up to 5%
Pension that you can retire on after 30yrs of service.





That's what a class A driver with all endorsements, and a clean record should command. Every LtL has enough profit to aford this.
 
No F-bdy Bs said:
$40hr
Ot after 8hrs
Free, GOOD Healthcare. Zero deductible for in network, $5 max for Rx.
401k match up to 5%
Pension that you can retire on after 30yrs of service.





That's what a class A driver with all endorsements, and a clean record should command. Every LtL has enough profit to aford this.
Click to expand...
100% but I fear those days may be gone for most. The willingness of drivers to work for less or should I say not only the willingness but to vehemently defend employers for compensating less is where we’re at.

Apparently , much to the liking of trucking companies things will have to get much worse before drivers realize where it’s going. Companies have more legislative influence than ever. New Laws weakening workers rights a being pushed through every year. Companies continue to enhance profits with this strong tailwind of laws suppressing workers abilities to have a voice.
 
Last edited:
OV-10 said:
100% but I fear those days may be gone for most. The willingness of drivers to work for less or should I say not only the willingness but to vehemently defend employers for compensating less is where we’re at.

Apparently , much to the liking of trucking companies things will have to get much worse before drivers realize where it’s going. Companies have more legislative influence than ever. New Laws weakening workers rights a being pushed through every year. Companies continue to enhance profits with this strong tailwind of laws suppressing workers abilities to have a voice.
Click to expand...
Truckers today don't really seem to want a voice. No one and no laws are stopping them from organizing if they really wanted to. :duh:
 
Triplex said:
Truckers today don't really seem to want a voice. No one and no laws are stopping them from organizing if they really wanted to. :duh:
Click to expand...
Workers “technically” have the right to file for an election. With that being said, please take the time to read what they face. Once they do I personally have lived through this. No politician wants to back a bill that openly text the right to organize from the workers because that would be political ******* at this time, but they overtly pass legislation that makes it near impossible to get any traction once you organize.
www.epi.org

How the PRO Act restores workers’ right to unionize: A chart of the ways the PRO Act fixes major problems in current labor law

Nearly half of all nonunion workers say they want a union in their workplace, yet only 12% of all workers are actually represented by a union.{{1}} Current law places too many obstacles in the way of workers trying to organize and gives employers too much power to interfere with workers’ free...
www.epi.org www.epi.org
 
OV-10 said:
Workers “technically” have the right to file for an election. With that being said, please take the time to read what they face. Once they do I personally have lived through this.
www.epi.org

How the PRO Act restores workers’ right to unionize: A chart of the ways the PRO Act fixes major problems in current labor law

Nearly half of all nonunion workers say they want a union in their workplace, yet only 12% of all workers are actually represented by a union.{{1}} Current law places too many obstacles in the way of workers trying to organize and gives employers too much power to interfere with workers’ free...
www.epi.org www.epi.org
Click to expand...
Regardless of obstacles, if overwhelming number of employees at most all company locations want representation they can easily get it. The problem is that workers are fragmented and companies can exploit that to stifle the effort.
 
Here’s an article from time magazine

time.com

Companies Will Do Just About Anything to Stop Workers Unionizing

Steaks branded "VOTE NO" and discounts on marijuana—how employers are allegedly trying to convince workers to reject unions.
time.com time.com

Here’s an excerpt from the article

“The majority of workers have made clear that they would prefer to be represented by a union,” Bronfenbrenner says. “But that desire is thwarted by a combination of weak labor laws and aggressive employer anti-union campaigns—replete with threats, interrogation, surveillance, discharges, harassment, discrimination, and bribes.”
 
Workers at our location live this first hand . Unless you have been through this you probably don’t understand what weakened labor laws have done
Voting in the union, although difficult, is nothing compared to the advantage companies have through delay, tactics, and misinformation campaigns.
 
OV-10 said:
Workers “technically” have the right to file for an election. With that being said, please take the time to read what they face. Once they do I personally have lived through this. No politician wants to back a bill that openly text the right to organize from the workers because that would be political ******* at this time, but they overtly pass legislation that makes it near impossible to get any traction once you organize.
www.epi.org

How the PRO Act restores workers’ right to unionize: A chart of the ways the PRO Act fixes major problems in current labor law

Nearly half of all nonunion workers say they want a union in their workplace, yet only 12% of all workers are actually represented by a union.{{1}} Current law places too many obstacles in the way of workers trying to organize and gives employers too much power to interfere with workers’ free...
www.epi.org www.epi.org
Click to expand...
So we're does this PRO act stand now
 
Triplex said:
Regardless of obstacles, if overwhelming number of employees at most all company locations want representation they can easily get it. The problem is that workers are fragmented and companies can exploit that to stifle the effort.
Click to expand...
100%
 
OV-10 said:
Workers “technically” have the right to file for an election. With that being said, please take the time to read what they face. Once they do I personally have lived through this. No politician wants to back a bill that openly text the right to organize from the workers because that would be political ******* at this time, but they overtly pass legislation that makes it near impossible to get any traction once you organize.
www.epi.org

How the PRO Act restores workers’ right to unionize: A chart of the ways the PRO Act fixes major problems in current labor law

Nearly half of all nonunion workers say they want a union in their workplace, yet only 12% of all workers are actually represented by a union.{{1}} Current law places too many obstacles in the way of workers trying to organize and gives employers too much power to interfere with workers’ free...
www.epi.org www.epi.org
Click to expand...
"nearly half of all non-union members want a union in their workplace." Where is the worker protection for the more than half who don't? Why do you oppose Right to Work laws that more than half the states now have? The current process is in place to protect the rights of ALL workers.
 
Razorblade said:
"nearly half of all non-union members want a union in their workplace." Where is the worker protection for the more than half who don't? Why do you oppose Right to Work laws that more than half the states now have? The current process is in place to protect the rights of ALL workers.
Click to expand...
Because unknown to most people the federal government already protects workers freedom not to join a union. Workers can decide to opt out of membership at a unionized workplace and pay a reduced fee that covers the costs the union pays to negotiate for wages and benefits and represent an employee if they have a problem at work.

The term “right to work“ is a misnomer.

There is a vote to begin with . The majority won . The losing workers and the company had a fair opportunity to voice their opinion to the workers to sway the vote in their direction. Plus after a certain period of time the can form a petition to hold another vote if they have the support. Their is no fairer way to decide what the major wants.

Right to work is a backhanded way to undermine the majority rule.
 
Last edited:
OV-10 said:
Because unknown to most people the federal government already protects workers freedom not to join a union. Workers can decide to opt out of membership at a unionized workplace and pay a reduced fee that covers the costs the union pays to negotiate for wages and benefits and represent an employee if they have a problem at work.

The term “right to work“ is a misnomer.

There is a vote to begin with . The majority won . The losing workers and the company had a fair opportunity to voice their opinion to the workers to sway the vote in their direction. Plus after a certain period of time the can form a petition to hold another vote if they have the support. Their is no fairer way to decide what the major wants.

Right to work is a backhanded way to undermine the majority rule.
Click to expand...
So, because a majority of workers voted to be Teamsters in 1950, every employee hired in the last 70 years is forced to pay for the right to work there.
 
Razorblade said:
So, because a majority of workers voted to be Teamsters in 1950, every employee hired in the last 70 years is forced to pay for the right to work there.
Click to expand...
Work where ? No one is being forced to work anywhere union or non union . I’m not sure I follow you question?
If the majority of workers feel they need a union federal law allows them to vote in a union . The same vote also gives a fair chance to workers who do not want a union . If they win then the workers remain non union. Law also allows workers to decertify or hold another election if they don’t want or don’t get results from organizing.
How much fairer can it get ?
They also don’t have to pay full union dues if they object .
“Objector”
What part of the Beck ruling do you not get:

Federal law allows unions and employers to enter into "union-security" agreements which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired. Employees may choose not to become union members and pay dues, or opt to pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

“Employees may chose may choose not to pay union dues”
 
Last edited:
Razorblade said:
So, because a majority of workers voted to be Teamsters in 1950, every employee hired in the last 70 years is forced to pay for the right to work there.
Click to expand...
If they are going to be working under a Union negotiated contract, then absolutely they should have to pay their part. Otherwise, find employment at a non-Union employer.
OV-10, you are wasting your time trying to explain your point to Blade. He used to be Teamster. Now, he bites the very hand that fed him for 30 years!!!
 
Steward of the Rock said:
If they are going to be working under a Union negotiated contract, then absolutely they should have to pay their part. Otherwise, find employment at a non-Union employer.
OV-10, you are wasting your time trying to explain your point to Blade. He used to be Teamster. Now, he bites the very hand that fed him for 30 years!!!
Click to expand...
Copy that . Thanks for the insight
 
OV-10 said:
Work where ? No one is being forced to work anywhere union or non union . I’m not sure I follow you question?
If the majority of workers feel they need a union federal law allows them to vote in a union . The same vote also gives a fair chance to workers who do not want a union . If they win then the workers remain non union. Law also allows workers to decertify or hold another election if they don’t want or don’t get results from organizing.
How much fairer can it get ?
They also don’t have to pay full union dues if they object .
“Objector”
What part of the Beck ruling do you not get:

Federal law allows unions and employers to enter into "union-security" agreements which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired. Employees may choose not to become union members and pay dues, or opt to pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer union members, but are still protected by the contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right.

“Employees may chose may choose not to pay union dues”
Click to expand...
Been in two union shops and it was put out plain as day, either join or quit. The union said nothing about the Beck Rights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top