What's new

XPO | Xpo Union Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
30 years ago I could get an appt with a dr and been seen within days if not same day. Even if it’s a specialist and without breaking the bank to do it. What has changed? It’s common to wait 3-6 mos now to see a specialist and it costs arm and a leg. Where did all the extra cost come from? Drs aren’t making more than 30 years ago when factored for inflation
 
Brad Jacobs from 5/2/19 investors call:

One way that we're doing that is investing in technology, specifically in our Smart Program, our Smart Program is our labor management tools and they worked so well in our contract logistics business that now we're rolling them out in LTL. And in LTL, we have about $1.7 billion in labor costs. “ Really, we have a vision to be able to run the set of business we have right now at $100 million to $300 million less labor costs over time.

How are we going to do that by using these smart labor tools? The smart labor tools allow us in an objective way, in a mathematical way, by using predictive analytics, by using AI to say what's the right amount of headcount we want? Not too much, not too little, but just the ideal headcount for the project.

And we have to use predictive analytics in order to understand what the tonnage is likely to be the next day. And then that we use the smart technology to know what's the right ratio between full time workers and part time workers. What's the right ratio between dock workers and drivers, what's the right amount of overtime? So these, these questions that I just mentioned that Smart helps us solve has very big ramifications in terms of our wage costs and we think that we can more than offset wage inflation as we rollout these tools in LTL.

So what does this mean :
“And in LTL, we have about $1.7 billion in labor costs. “ Really, we have a vision to be able to run the set of business we have right now at $100 million to $300 million less labor costs over time”
 
Last edited:
Hollywoodz said:
I'm not sure that a "free market" can even exist anymore. Those with the capital always have an advantage over the little guy. Someone with a great idea for a product or service, cultivates and develops it and instead of retaining control for future generations, he sells out to a huge corporation and enjoys a well earned payday for his efforts. Good for him, but bad for the competitiveness a free market is supposed to create. Is there a local hardware store in your neighborhood? I'll bet there's a Home Depot. Same with local grocery stores, lumber yards, etc.
A genuine free market is fine for ancillary products and services. Car manufacturers compete for our business based on price, style, luxury or sport packages etc. You can buy a $300 pair of sunglasses or a $10 pair. Almost all of the products we use on a daily basis aren't necessary to our existence and you can choose which items you buy based on your personal preference. A kind of take it or leave it deal. I can't afford the BMW. so I'll take the Kia. It's a nice car too!
Health care shouldn't be a free market product. It's never a take it or leave it deal. It's necessary for our existence. It should be provided to all as a fulfillment of the promise in the Declaration of Independence; that being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't have any of those if your sick and can't afford treatment or medication. It's cruel to watch someone work their entire lives for a shot at a comfortable retirement and then, lose it all because they got sick. As icuicp said, We are the mother f*&^%$ing USA. We can do better. Every civilized country has figured it out. We should be able to figure it out too.
Click to expand...


The guy who invented the k cups for making coffee. He sold it off for $50 grand. Unable to do anything with it by himself. And then the massive corporation takes it over and goes to scale with it and makes billions a year off of it.
 
sucker666 said:
Brad Jacobs from 5/2/19 investors call:

One way that we're doing that is investing in technology, specifically in our Smart Program, our Smart Program is our labor management tools and they worked so well in our contract logistics business that now we're rolling them out in LTL. And in LTL, we have about $1.7 billion in labor costs. “ Really, we have a vision to be able to run the set of business we have right now at $100 million to $300 million less labor costs over time.

How are we going to do that by using these smart labor tools? The smart labor tools allow us in an objective way, in a mathematical way, by using predictive analytics, by using AI to say what's the right amount of headcount we want? Not too much, not too little, but just the ideal headcount for the project.

And we have to use predictive analytics in order to understand what the tonnage is likely to be the next day. And then that we use the smart technology to know what's the right ratio between full time workers and part time workers. What's the right ratio between dock workers and drivers, what's the right amount of overtime? So these, these questions that I just mentioned that Smart helps us solve has very big ramifications in terms of our wage costs and we think that we can more than offset wage inflation as we rollout these tools in LTL.

So what does this mean :
“And in LTL, we have about $1.7 billion in labor costs. “ Really, we have a vision to be able to run the set of business we have right now at $100 million to $300 million less labor costs over time”
Click to expand...

It seems simple to me. Keep losing freight. And you will keep spending less on labor. These analytics are " SO COMPLEX ". ( sarcasm )

We are pissing off what few customers we have. And pissing off what few drivers we have. It's leading to an obvious and inevitable conclusion. Eventually, you can't do more with less. You just do less and less with less.
 
highspeeds said:
The guy who invented the k cups for making coffee. He sold it off for $50 grand. Unable to do anything with it by himself. And then the massive corporation takes it over and goes to scale with it and makes billions a year off of it.
Click to expand...

Damn, 50 grand! I didn't know that...but it's exactly what goes on.
 
sucker666 said:
Brad Jacobs from 5/2/19 investors call:

One way that we're doing that is investing in technology, specifically in our Smart Program, our Smart Program is our labor management tools and they worked so well in our contract logistics business that now we're rolling them out in LTL. And in LTL, we have about $1.7 billion in labor costs. “ Really, we have a vision to be able to run the set of business we have right now at $100 million to $300 million less labor costs over time.

How are we going to do that by using these smart labor tools? The smart labor tools allow us in an objective way, in a mathematical way, by using predictive analytics, by using AI to say what's the right amount of headcount we want? Not too much, not too little, but just the ideal headcount for the project.

And we have to use predictive analytics in order to understand what the tonnage is likely to be the next day. And then that we use the smart technology to know what's the right ratio between full time workers and part time workers. What's the right ratio between dock workers and drivers, what's the right amount of overtime? So these, these questions that I just mentioned that Smart helps us solve has very big ramifications in terms of our wage costs and we think that we can more than offset wage inflation as we rollout these tools in LTL.

So what does this mean :
“And in LTL, we have about $1.7 billion in labor costs. “ Really, we have a vision to be able to run the set of business we have right now at $100 million to $300 million less labor costs over time”
Click to expand...

Saving 100 to 300 million in labor costs does not bode very well for us.
 
Hollywoodz said:
I'm not sure that a "free market" can even exist anymore. Those with the capital always have an advantage over the little guy. Someone with a great idea for a product or service, cultivates and develops it and instead of retaining control for future generations, he sells out to a huge corporation and enjoys a well earned payday for his efforts. Good for him, but bad for the competitiveness a free market is supposed to create. Is there a local hardware store in your neighborhood? I'll bet there's a Home Depot. Same with local grocery stores, lumber yards, etc.
A genuine free market is fine for ancillary products and services. Car manufacturers compete for our business based on price, style, luxury or sport packages etc. You can buy a $300 pair of sunglasses or a $10 pair. Almost all of the products we use on a daily basis aren't necessary to our existence and you can choose which items you buy based on your personal preference. A kind of take it or leave it deal. I can't afford the BMW. so I'll take the Kia. It's a nice car too!
Health care shouldn't be a free market product. It's never a take it or leave it deal. It's necessary for our existence. It should be provided to all as a fulfillment of the promise in the Declaration of Independence; that being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't have any of those if your sick and can't afford treatment or medication. It's cruel to watch someone work their entire lives for a shot at a comfortable retirement and then, lose it all because they got sick. As icuicp said, We are the mother f*&^%$ing USA. We can do better. Every civilized country has figured it out. We should be able to figure it out too.
Click to expand...
I'm going to zero in on one sentence because in that one sentence you laid all your cards on the table. Here it is in quotations.

"It's necessary for our existence. It should be provided to all as a fulfillment of the promise in the Declaration of Independence; that being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What you're saying here is that you believe that people, in order to be free from health care woes, need to empower the state in order that they may collectively enjoy the benefits of good health. That only by subordinating certain rights to government can those rights be fully realized. Here is the entire text of that sentence in the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Where in that passage does it say that our right to pursue happiness comes from government? A further reading of the Declaration and the Constitution tells us that the Founders and Framers believed that the people we're meant to be free from government interference in their lives and that government's role relative to the right to pursue happiness was to protect those rights, including the right to obtain the best health care possible within one's means, not to create laws that established a system of doling out a one size fits all healthcare plan to all the people. If we ever reach a day in this country where we hand over to the government, control of our healthcare there will be nothing that will stop it from regulating anything associated with good health. The government will have carte blanche to regulate, tax, and even ban anything it deems as detrimental to the public health. I understand where you're coming from on this subject, you're talking about granting the government a positive right to do what it believes is best on your behalf, but yet a reading of the founding documents leaves one with the notion that our country was founded on the concept of negative rights, the idea that we should be "free from" government intervention and not that the government should be "free to" do whatever it deems necessary to better society. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, so I agree to just respectfully disagree with you.
 
ScotchNeat said:
I'm going to zero in on one sentence because in that one sentence you laid all your cards on the table. Here it is in quotations.

"It's necessary for our existence. It should be provided to all as a fulfillment of the promise in the Declaration of Independence; that being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

What you're saying here is that you believe that people, in order to be free from health care woes, need to empower the state in order that they may collectively enjoy the benefits of good health. That only by subordinating certain rights to government can those rights be fully realized. Here is the entire text of that sentence in the Declaration, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Where in that passage does it say that our right to pursue happiness comes from government? A further reading of the Declaration and the Constitution tells us that the Founders and Framers believed that the people we're meant to be free from government interference in their lives and that government's role relative to the right to pursue happiness was to protect those rights, including the right to obtain the best health care possible within one's means, not to create laws that established a system of doling out a one size fits all healthcare plan to all the people. If we ever reach a day in this country where we hand over to the government, control of our healthcare there will be nothing that will stop it from regulating anything associated with good health. The government will have carte blanche to regulate, tax, and even ban anything it deems as detrimental to the public health. I understand where you're coming from on this subject, you're talking about granting the government a positive right to do what it believes is best on your behalf, but yet a reading of the founding documents leaves one with the notion that our country was founded on the concept of negative rights, the idea that we should be "free from" government intervention and not that the government should be "free to" do whatever it deems necessary to better society. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, so I agree to just respectfully disagree with you.
Click to expand...

True, I respectfully disagree. I only wish I had more time in my day to continue a real in depth discussion on these topics. We may not persuade each other to rethink our position, but it would be interesting and informative. I don't know about you, but all I seem to do is work and sleep. If I'm not in the truck, I'm under my car or in the backyard. I have truly had enough of productivity. Now, I just want to lay on the beach.

Ultimately, I believe that a certain amount of government intervention and regulation is necessary for the safety and health of its citizens. Why create a government at all, if you have no intentions of allowing it to intercede in our lives. A largely unregulated society can be a very dangerous thing. I don't believe that a government should have the right to do whatever it chooses on your behalf...unless the majority of its citizens votes for that choice.
 
Hollywoodz said:
True, I respectfully disagree. I only wish I had more time in my day to continue a real in depth discussion on these topics. We may not persuade each other to rethink our position, but it would be interesting and informative. I don't know about you, but all I seem to do is work and sleep. If I'm not in the truck, I'm under my car or in the backyard. I have truly had enough of productivity. Now, I just want to lay on the beach.

Ultimately, I believe that a certain amount of government intervention and regulation is necessary for the safety and health of its citizens. Why create a government at all, if you have no intentions of allowing it to intercede in our lives. A largely unregulated society can be a very dangerous thing. I don't believe that a government should have the right to do whatever it chooses on your behalf...unless the majority of its citizens votes for that choice.
Click to expand...
To your last point. Let me throw something your way that perhaps you haven't considered. Do you think it's possible that through direct democracy, that a body politic can vote itself into having tyrannical government that once installed, can never be controlled by the majority again? Do you think it's possible that without certain protections being spelled out in a country's governing charter, that a simple vote of the majority has ability to strip large amounts of individuals of their unalienable rights?
 
A quick glance at the YRC board shows that the men over there voted yea on their new contract and IMO, they're going to be taking in the backside in lieu of lube for another five years. Go Teamsters!
 
ScotchNeat said:
To your last point. Let me throw something your way that perhaps you haven't considered. Do you think it's possible that through direct democracy, that a body politic can vote itself into having tyrannical government that once installed, can never be controlled by the majority again? Do you think it's possible that without certain protections being spelled out in a country's governing charter, that a simple vote of the majority has ability to strip large amounts of individuals of their unalienable rights?
Click to expand...

I believe that the tyrannical government to which you refer is in place right now in this country. Maybe tyrannical is too strong a word, but the Trump administration is certainly out of control. So, yes, I have to say I agree with you on this. It will be difficult for the majority to regain control, but I think it's a distinct possibility.

There is a book by Milton Friedman, "They Thought They Were Free" based on the events that created ಠ▄ಠ's (⊙▃⊙) Germany. The author interviewed 10 German citizens who experienced first hand the methods used to create the situation you described in your post.
 
Last edited:
ScotchNeat said:
A quick glance at the YRC board shows that the men over there voted yea on their new contract and IMO, they're going to be taking in the backside in lieu of lube for another five years. Go Teamsters!
Click to expand...

Without the Teamsters, they would have gotten nothing. Any union can only get what the company has to give and maybe a little bit more. Years of mismanagement brought YRC to where it is today and hopefully, 5 years from now, their drivers will get better results. Even though it's not a great comfort on payday you have to remember that their total compensation package is still better than ours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top