What's new

Yellow | Seven (7) Years Ago....This Post Fell On Deaf Ears!

Kennesaw Kid said:

Yellow | - Yrc The Cancer Of The Trucking Industry

YRC The Cancer Of The Trucking Industry There comes a point that you have to stop worrying that you will be persecuted for speaking the truth, and that point has arrived. For way to long those that not only work for this corporation, but also those who are in the industry in one form or...
www.truckingboards.com www.truckingboards.com
Click to expand...
So what's the point? Company still provided for decent jobs for lots of people for 6+ more years and gave people who were unhappy lots of time to find better jobs for themselves. Seems to me that was better than shutting down suddenly back then and throwing many more out of work. :duh:
 
Yellow's inability to generate profits to pay debt was the core issue.
I can't believe it lasted as long as it did. Hats off to some of the team for keeping it alive that long.
Heard some of the public carriers are reporting solid growth and profit data. Many hauling the same exact freight that Yellow handled. They can capture a premium where Yellow could not.
The rush to the doors after the brilliant tombstone posting by the union boss was the death blow.
 
$1585/share 2005. Golly, investors were giddy with 100% factual reported results & expectations. No offense to most of you.
 
The actions by the company were never questioned by the Teamsters union which supposedly had a board member overseeing things. Never saw one report from that board member and what their input was. Can you expect a union to turn a sinking ship? No. Can you expect the Teamsters union to expect certain actions with the givebacks? Yes, but this never happened.
 
truckinus said:
The actions by the company were never questioned by the Teamsters union which supposedly had a board member overseeing things. Never saw one report from that board member and what their input was. Can you expect a union to turn a sinking ship? No. Can you expect the Teamsters union to expect certain actions with the givebacks? Yes, but this never happened.
Click to expand...
The Teamsters Union was allowed to recommend a board member. His job was not to "oversee" on behalf of the Union. As a board member his legal/fiduciary duty was to the owners/shareholders.
 
truckinus said:
The actions by the company were never questioned by the Teamsters union which supposedly had a board member overseeing things. Never saw one report from that board member and what their input was. Can you expect a union to turn a sinking ship? No. Can you expect the Teamsters union to expect certain actions with the givebacks? Yes, but this never happened.
Click to expand...
Truck, the Teamsters did indeed have representation on the Board, two people I think. However, they weren't overseeing any more than any other Board member. They certainly didn't have a majority or veto power over things. Kind of like having three far-right Republicans on a ten-person panel that is otherwise loaded with Socialist-minded people.
 
Triplex said:
The Teamsters Union was allowed to recommend a board member. His job was not to "oversee" on behalf of the Union. As a board member his legal/fiduciary duty was to the owners/shareholders.
Click to expand...
You would think they would highlight the positives of their presence. Hard to do when there was nothing positive.
 
Real Teamster said:
Truck, the Teamsters did indeed have representation on the Board, two people I think. However, they weren't overseeing any more than any other Board member. They certainly didn't have a majority or veto power over things. Kind of like having three far-right Republicans on a ten-person panel that is otherwise loaded with Socialist-minded people.
Click to expand...

...or more accurately, kind of like having three Socialist-minded people on a ten person panel otherwise loaded with far-right Republicans. ;)
 
EX396 said:
...or more accurately, kind of like having three Socialist-minded people on a ten person panel otherwise loaded with far-right Republicans. ;)
Click to expand...
The makeup doesn't matter anyway, they will hang out after hours and be friends, then during the day play act like they disagree, and never get anything accomplished.......just to run again for "change"
 
truckinus said:
The actions by the company were never questioned by the Teamsters union which supposedly had a board member overseeing things. Never saw one report from that board member and what their input was. Can you expect a union to turn a sinking ship? No. Can you expect the Teamsters union to expect certain actions with the givebacks? Yes, but this never happened.
Click to expand...

EX396 said:
...or more accurately, kind of like having three Socialist-minded people on a ten person panel otherwise loaded with far-right Republicans. ;)
Click to expand...

ABF381 said:
The makeup doesn't matter anyway, they will hang out after hours and be friends, then during the day play act like they disagree, and never get anything accomplished.......just to run again for "change"
Click to expand...

"A board of directors (BofD) is the governing body of a company, whose members are elected by shareholders (in the case of public companies) to set strategy, oversee management, and protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders."
www.investopedia.com

Board of Directors: What It Is, What Its Role Is

A board of directors (BofD) is the governing body of a company that is elected by shareholders to provide guidance, set strategy, and oversee management.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com

"A board of directors is responsible for protecting shareholders’ interests, establishing management policies, overseeing the governance of the corporation or organization, and making critical business decisions."
corporatefinanceinstitute.com

Board of Directors

A board of directors is a panel of people elected to represent shareholders. Every public company is required to install a board of directors.
corporatefinanceinstitute.com corporatefinanceinstitute.com
 
Triplex said:
"A board of directors (BofD) is the governing body of a company, whose members are elected by shareholders (in the case of public companies) to set strategy, oversee management, and protect the interests of shareholders and stakeholders."
www.investopedia.com

Board of Directors: What It Is, What Its Role Is

A board of directors (BofD) is the governing body of a company that is elected by shareholders to provide guidance, set strategy, and oversee management.
www.investopedia.com www.investopedia.com

"A board of directors is responsible for protecting shareholders’ interests, establishing management policies, overseeing the governance of the corporation or organization, and making critical business decisions."
corporatefinanceinstitute.com

Board of Directors

A board of directors is a panel of people elected to represent shareholders. Every public company is required to install a board of directors.
corporatefinanceinstitute.com corporatefinanceinstitute.com
Click to expand...
Not sure why you quoted my post. I was 'correcting' RT's analogy comparing the Teamster appointed BOD members to far right Republicans and company- minded BOD members as socialist leaning. It's exactly 180 degrees out.

I have sat on 4 BoDs in my lifetime although none were publicly traded companies, rather small private corporations and member- owned clubs.
 
EX396 said:
Not sure why you quoted my post. I was 'correcting' RT's analogy comparing the Teamster appointed BOD members to far right Republicans and company- minded BOD members as socialist leaning. It's exactly 180 degrees out.

I have sat on 4 BoDs in my lifetime although none were publicly traded companies, rather small private corporations and member- owned clubs.
Click to expand...
Not meaning anything specific in your post EX, just arbitrarily quoted the last three posts that were about boards of directors. :1036316054:
 
Real Teamster said:
Truck, the Teamsters did indeed have representation on the Board, two people I think. However, they weren't overseeing any more than any other Board member. They certainly didn't have a majority or veto power over things. Kind of like having three far-right Republicans on a ten-person panel that is otherwise loaded with Socialist-minded people.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the “seat” on the board doesn’t mean anything, if the brain above doesn’t understand what they’re looking at.
Have seen people on boards that have no clue what they’re talking about, but won’t ask questions, they just vote to go along.
 
One of the men appointed, on the recommendation of the International, was Bob Davidson. During his career in the industry, he was a Southern Division Vice President of Labor, as well as corporate Vice President of Labor AGO. Both positions were with Roadway Express.
He was all you could expect, fair, reasonable and consistent. His job was not to please the Teamsters. It was to negotiate the most favorable working conditions, for Roadway, from us for the wages and benefits we were paid.
For anyone to suggest he would be the Teamster's "white knight", is unrealistic and absurd. He was on the BOD for the same reason the remainder of the BOD was. To guide the corporate behavior, to promote a profitable enterprise.
There were never any Teamsters on the BOD.
 
Triplex said:
So what's the point? Company still provided for decent jobs for lots of people for 6+ more years and gave people who were unhappy lots of time to find better jobs for themselves. Seems to me that was better than shutting down suddenly back then and throwing many more out of work. :duh:
Click to expand...
First off, companies don't "provide" anything. CF shut down suddenly. I didn't like it at the time (and still don't). However, there were still plenty of opportunities that I'm not sure exist today and I landed on my feet fairly quickly. Looking back, I'm glad I didn't die the slow death of broken promises. It's easy to say from the outside looking in to get another job particularly when you've got 20 or more years invested and can see the finish line even with pension portability. At CF, I probably would have been one to stay until the very end and the end result would have been the same. I'm not sure being the last to go is the best position to be in. The non-unions can savor their victory but don't even know there's been a decline anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top