Guest viewing is limited
  • Truckingboards is a MEMBERS ONLY Private Forum that first got it's start in 1999, Membership is 100% Free, We have Over 40k Members and approaching 2 million posts that date back to the early 2000's.Registration is easy and fast. We specialize in LTL trucking. Get off those Facebook Groups and come to a place where your identity will be unknown unless you tell someone. Truckingboards has a mobile app that works for Android you can install from your mobile browser. Sorry Apple Users, I know nothing about them.

    Click Here

    For instructions on how to install the mobile app.

XPO Union Thread #2

ABF381

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
Premium
Good for them. But it won’t charge a damn thing. Wake the hell up. Vote with your feet and get your ass out of there.
You know, on this point I agree with both you and OV.....they aren't quitters for leaving if they felt that was best for them...that being said I don't blame them for staying and fighting if they feel that is what they must do...in my opinion it isn't one size fits all....
 

highspeeds

ENTERTAINMENT USE ONLY
Premium
You know, on this point I agree with both you and OV.....they aren't quitters for leaving if they felt that was best for them...that being said I don't blame them for staying and fighting if they feel that is what they must do...in my opinion it isn't one size fits all....

They need to “ quit “ making up reasons and excuses for a horrific employer. The problems start at the top. Even YRC is showing profit right now. Literally anyone can make money moving freight right now. This industry has never been more lucrative.
 

highspeeds

ENTERTAINMENT USE ONLY
Premium
You know, on this point I agree with both you and OV.....they aren't quitters for leaving if they felt that was best for them...that being said I don't blame them for staying and fighting if they feel that is what they must do...in my opinion it isn't one size fits all....

You can’t tell me they haven’t known about the systemic issues for years. Surveys. Round tables. Over and over. These people don’t listen. These people don’t care. We aren’t even human beings to them.
 

OV-10

Well-Known Member
You can’t tell me they haven’t known about the systemic issues for years. Surveys. Round tables. Over and over. These people don’t listen. These people don’t care. We aren’t even human beings to them.
The only thing they care about is if a location is going to vote for unionization. Then their laser focused. They will intensely spend weeks before the vote strategizing , planning or do whatever it takes to derail the effort. I don’t know what it is about unions but it’s like throwing holy water on Satan to them. It’s the only thing they fear and motivates them into a frenzy. With unions being so ineffective they certainly believe there’s some sort of threat still. I guess they fear if a bunch of terminals unionized then they may have some say in matters. So one can understand how the company wants to keep that from happening. It would be horrible if they couldn’t use the nose rings any longer.
 
Last edited:

ScotchNeat

Well-Known Member
The only thing they care about is if a location is going to vote for unionization. Then their laser focused. They will intensely spend weeks before the vote strategizing , planning or do whatever it takes to derail the effort. I don’t know what it is about unions but it’s like throwing holy water on Satan to them. It’s the only thing they fear and motivates them into a frenzy. With unions being so ineffective they certainly believe there’s some sort of threat still. I guess they fear if a bunch of terminals unionized then they may have some say in matters. So one can understand how the company wants to keep that from happening. It would be horrible if they couldn’t use the nose rings any longer.
I can't say for sure what the company's aversion is to unions, but if I was on the other side, a couple of things come to mind. First, they don't want a set-in-stone grievance process as they want the flexibility to terminate employment on a whim. Second, they don't want work rules, specifically those that would create job descriptions that employees could not work beyond under threat of a grievance being filed. Take our driver job description for example. We're not just drivers, we're loaders, we split our own sets, we're hostlers, we fuel our own trucks, and we do minor repairs and maintenance. If I were the employer, I would view rules that create job descriptions as nothing more than creating inefficiencies which affect the bottom line. Honestly, I don't blame the company for taking these positions nor do I blame union members who take opposing positions. To me, this is where the battleground is.
 

OV-10

Well-Known Member
I can't say for sure what the company's aversion is to unions, but if I was on the other side, a couple of things come to mind. First, they don't want a set-in-stone grievance process as they want the flexibility to terminate employment on a whim. Second, they don't want work rules, specifically those that would create job descriptions that employees could not work beyond under threat of a grievance being filed. Take our driver job description for example. We're not just drivers, we're loaders, we split our own sets, we're hostlers, we fuel our own trucks, and we do minor repairs and maintenance. If I were the employer, I would view rules that create job descriptions as nothing more than creating inefficiencies which affect the bottom line. Honestly, I don't blame the company for taking these positions nor do I blame union members who take opposing positions. To me, this is where the battleground is.
Drivers can remain doing all those duties. They do under the 2 current contract. What they do have though is a grievance and arbitration process . That protects them from frivolous and Rogue management if necessary. That is priceless. They are no longer “at will” employees

Management retains the right to terminate someone. It just has to be with just cause. No more kangaroo courts. Some commits a cardinal offense an it’s proven their done.
 
Last edited:

ScotchNeat

Well-Known Member
Drivers can remain doing all those duties. They do under the 2 current contract. What they do have though is a grievance and arbitration process . That protects them from frivolous and Rogue management if necessary. That is priceless. They are no longer “at will” employees

Management retains the right to terminate someone. It just has to be with just cause. No more kangaroo courts. Some commits a cardinal offense an it’s proven their done.
I know, that's the current contract. But the contract isn't forever and nothing stops the union from asking for more employee work rules in a future contract, right? And yes, I know the union grievance process is priceless......for the drivers, but not so much for the company. Again, I'm not taking any sides and I'm not asking you to defend the union. I was just answering the question you posed in an earlier post.
 

ScotchNeat

Well-Known Member
CEO's have contracts why can't workers ?
No one is saying worker's can't have contracts. But traditionally, workers don't have nor will have the same kind of contracts with a company that a CEO does, so what's the point of bringing the question?
 

OV-10

Well-Known Member
No one is saying worker's can't have contracts. But traditionally, workers don't have nor will have the same kind of contracts with a company that a CEO does, so what's the point of bringing the question?
Who does the CEO not trust that makes them feel they need a contract . The CEO will preach to us to trust him/her but he does not trust others will do right by him/her
 

ScotchNeat

Well-Known Member
Who does the CEO not trust that makes them feel they need a contract . The CEO will preach to us to trust him/her but he does not trust others will do right by him/her
Trust and contracts have little to do with one another, in fact a contract is a document that's agreed upon by all parties in lieu of trust. But you already know that, now you know I know it too. The only reason I commented on snake eyes post was because he drew a false equivalency to a CEO contract and a union contract. End of story.
 

ABF381

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
Premium
Trust and contracts have little to do with one another, in fact a contract is a document that's agreed upon by all parties in lieu of trust. But you already know that, now you know I know it too. The only reason I commented on snake eyes post was because he drew a false equivalency to a CEO contract and a union contract. End of story.
Most of the time your posts make sense...this is not one of those times.....a CEO contract and a union contract are indeed equivalent..they are both legally binding between the parties... Both have terms and conditions for employment and both have terms for when employment ends (severance).... End of story.
 

ScotchNeat

Well-Known Member
Most of the time your posts make sense...this is not one of those times.....a CEO contract and a union contract are indeed equivalent..they are both legally binding between the parties... Both have terms and conditions for employment and both have terms for when employment ends (severance).... End of story.
To the extent you say, I would agree. What makes these two drastically different and why I said what I said earlier is because a CEO contract is exclusive to one individual and the board of directors and is negotiated from that standpoint and the CEO is paid in a variety of different ways including stock options and performance bonuses. That's not the case with the union contract because not one of the individual employees negotiates directly with the board as they agree to have a third party intervene for the group, which I might add, brings with it it's own interests outside of the relationship between the men and the company. CEO and management contracts are all kept within the ranks of management and should ideally form a non-hostile work environment, not always the case with the union contract as I don't ever see management threaten strikes, slowdowns, and walkouts if they don't get their way
 

ABF381

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
Premium
To the extent you say, I would agree. What makes these two drastically different and why I said what I said earlier is because a CEO contract is exclusive to one individual and the board of directors and is negotiated from that standpoint and the CEO is paid in a variety of different ways including stock options and performance bonuses. That's not the case with the union contract because not one of the individual employees negotiates directly with the board as they agree to have a third party intervene for the group, which I might add, brings with it it's own interests outside of the relationship between the men and the company. CEO and management contracts are all kept within the ranks of management and should ideally form a non-hostile work environment, not always the case with the union contract as I don't ever see management threaten strikes, slowdowns, and walkouts if they don't get their way
You would agree that it is much easier for a CEO to come to terms on his compensation with the board as he has a working relationship (and in many cases actual friendships) with many members on the board...not so with the employees the union represents... as far as performance bonuses that is funny to me because I think of Bill Zollars when you mention that.....the third party intervening on behalf of the workers is no different than the CEO and his attorneys, as I doubt most CEOs negotiate the terms of their employment without them....which brings me to the employee....what do you think a company would say if a driver brought his lawyer to the job interview to negotiate his employment contract? That is why unions are important....and to your last point, of course you don't hear about battles between management during their negotiations....what would that solve? Remember there are friendships involved here.... Unions leak such things to show management they are serious and so members know what is going on....
 

Fly-by-night

Only when you care to send the very best
No one is saying worker's can't have contracts. But traditionally, workers don't have nor will have the same kind of contracts with a company that a CEO does, so what's the point of bringing the question?
Who does the CEO not trust that makes them feel they need a contract . The CEO will preach to us to trust him/her but he does not trust others will do right by him/her
Well in fact every employee has a contract. When you accept a job at any company you agree to there terms of employment. If you don't like there terms then don't except the job.
 

Fly-by-night

Only when you care to send the very best
You would agree that it is much easier for a CEO to come to terms on his compensation with the board as he has a working relationship (and in many cases actual friendships) with many members on the board...not so with the employees the union represents... as far as performance bonuses that is funny to me because I think of Bill Zollars when you mention that.....the third party intervening on behalf of the workers is no different than the CEO and his attorneys, as I doubt most CEOs negotiate the terms of their employment without them....which brings me to the employee....what do you think a company would say if a driver brought his lawyer to the job interview to negotiate his employment contract? That is why unions are important....and to your last point, of course you don't hear about battles between management during their negotiations....what would that solve? Remember there are friendships involved here.... Unions leak such things to show management they are serious and so members know what is going on....
In most cases companies go out and recruit these top mangers. Just like sports teams recruit top players. I have yet see a CEO job posting on indeed or any company site
 
Top