What's new

XPO | Xpo Union Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tell me again how horrible the insurance is here at XPO. I am a type one diabetic with exemption to drive. Insulin W/O insurance is almost $500 per 1000 unit vile. I go through 5 viles every 3 months or close to $2500. However with XPO insurance I pay $25 every three months. Test meter and test strips free. It really sux here. $25 every three months to keep me alive. How awful. BTW i am almost a 20 year employee here. I remember free healthcare but those days are gone. The coverage when i have had to use it is actually pretty good.
 
Hollywoodz said:
I'm over 50 and so are all my friends. Democrats don't see me as all those things you mentioned. And I don't understand why you think Democrats think that you are the problem with America. Democrats believe that ANYONE who believes in white supremacy, racism, homophobia or any of those other evils you mentioned IS the problem with America. Why would you think they are talking about you, if you don't follow that path. Unions contribute to Democratic candidates because Democratic candidates support and introduce legislation favorable to labor, the middle class (that's us) and NOT corporations. Protecting the Right to Organize Act, The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, The Workplace Democracy Act, The Butch Lewis Act and many more have been proposed in the House of Representative and some have already passed the House. All of these bills are labor, working man middle class friendly. They will NEVER pass the Senate, because...the Senate is run by Republicans. Republicans want to cut your social security and Medicare benefits, but you keep voting against your own self interests...because you can!
Click to expand...
I want to add to your post . It's inconceivable that any middle class working person would vote for a republican when you look at their past history , first in 1936 Republicans ran a guy by the name of Alford Landon Gov of Kansas to run against Roosevelt with full intentions of ending Social Security (no social security for us ) Bush wanted to farm that out to his buddies on Wall Street so the fat cats will decide how much of the money we paid into will we get back after they clean up on our funds, next Medicare , they want and still do have a target on Medicare they think they could do better but the problem according to Mitch McDonnell they have no plan , Medicaid:
another target for underprivileged people , No minimum wage no standards for wages keep the poor poor and the rich get richer off the backs of cheap labor the cheaper the better for them , next no unions they must get rid of unions so they can drive down wages just like it was before the unions came in effect . See why I don't vote republican ? The democrats are the lesser of the two evils but thats all we got, a two party system . A 3rd party will never happen .
 
Last edited:
Pup Driver said:
Bush wanted to farm that out to his buddies on Wall Street so the fat cats will decide how much of the money we paid into will we get back after they clean up on our funds
Click to expand...
Ok please check before you post. A simiple Google search you would have found that Bill Clinton want to give it away not Bush.
http://www.aei.org/publication/who-tried-to-give-the-social-security-trust-fund-to-wall-street/
"Under the Bush plan, workers could choose to have some of their Social Security payroll taxes contributed to a personal account similar to a 401(k). And those workers could also choose, if they liked, to invest some of those personal account contributions in a broad stock index fund that would be managed by a government entity similar to the Thrift Savings Plan for federal government employees."

Were as Clinton plan:

"President Clinton proposed investing about 15% of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market."
"Unlike the Bush plan, there was no room for choosing under the Clinton proposal to invest the trust fund in stocks. Individuals couldn’t opt out and they couldn’t choose to have their money invested in bonds rather than stocks, as they could have under the Bush plan."
So who really want to give our SS to the wall street fat cats. Looks like to me is was the Teamster back Bill Clinton

Hollywoodz said:
Unions contribute to Democratic candidates because Democratic candidates support and introduce legislation favorable to labor, the middle class (that's us) and NOT corporations.
Click to expand...
Really???????
What about the deregulation of the trucking industry. Both the Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control
The vote passed the house with 228 Democrats out of 274 voting YEA: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1980/h990
It also pass the Senate with a vote of 70 to 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980
"The deregulation of the trucking industry in the 1980s resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 employers that used to contribute" to the Central States Pension Fund. This is one of the factors that "led to Central States Pension Fund’s extreme under-funding problem".

What about NAFTA??? Yet another time both Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control.
It pass the Democratic controlled house with 102 out of 258 democrats voting YEA:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575
Then it passed the Senate with a vote of 61 to 38. Of that YEA vote 27 were democrat out of the 57 seat they held in the Sen
https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
"it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."
"NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits."
Is that what you call "legislation favorable to labor, the middle class (that's us) and NOT corporations?"

Pup Driver said:
rich get richer off the backs of cheap labor
Click to expand...
Then please explain why the Democrats will not support boarder security. were do you think the cheap labor is coming from??
Pup Driver said:
next Medicare , they want and still do have a target on Medicare
Click to expand...
Ok what about the Single Payer or Medicare for all plans they are pushing now? These Dems now are pushing this and it will make any private health insurance illegal including Teamcare. The can say what they want but that is there goal. Remember the line "if you like you plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep it"

The Democrats have the Unions so fooled just like they are doing to the people of color. Promising ton of free stuff and then when in control pass stuff I listed above that kills jobs in America. So go ahead and pull the Democrat level. The stand back and watch the jobs leave, taxes go up, and you Teamcare made illegal
 
Last edited:
Fly-by-night said:
Then why is someone forced to pay union dues when they work at a union shop. Don't they have a legal right not to join???
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response how ever can you give us any positive thing that the republicans have done to give even the slightest bit of anything that helped the average worker ? You mentioned right to work favored by republicans . You asked don't they have the right to not pay union dues ? The answer should be why is it by law to receive union benefits when you don't pay for them . Would this be a give away to those that don't pay ? The Supreme Court sided with Mark Janus btw Janus quit his job and went to work for a right winged think tank. Unions must give benefits and representation to nonpaying dues employees Shouldn't the unions tell them if ya don't pay your on your own to deal with management ? They should pay fair share other wise they are free loaders .Would you agree?
 
BabyJ5525 said:
The older I got I was just plain tired of the nearly 2 hour commute one way . Do a 534 mile linehaul run and drive home for 2 hours . My body was telling me do something different also my Dr telling me for the last 4 years I am killing myself . I was lied to in my interview here . WZ told twice the ins gets ALOT better in year two . So I convinced myself I could go a year til the insurance gets better . I am now in year 4 and the ins absolutely SUCKS ! If your younger I can see where guys think it’s fine/ok . When you get older you go to Drs more ( most do ) teamsters in’s covers wife , kids 100% except for small co pays . Major surgery I paid $25 . Here year two for the year out of pocket $7300 ! Plus weekly deductions . Health , vision & dental with teamsters you can’t beat it . I may go back my last year just for the ins to get things taken care of . Not sure but I may .
Click to expand...
I would go to work in a motorhome on monday drive it home saturday
 
Fly-by-night said:
Ok please check before you post. A simiple Google search you would have found that Bill Clinton want to give it away not Bush.
http://www.aei.org/publication/who-tried-to-give-the-social-security-trust-fund-to-wall-street/
"Under the Bush plan, workers could choose to have some of their Social Security payroll taxes contributed to a personal account similar to a 401(k). And those workers could also choose, if they liked, to invest some of those personal account contributions in a broad stock index fund that would be managed by a government entity similar to the Thrift Savings Plan for federal government employees."

Were as Clinton plan:

"President Clinton proposed investing about 15% of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market."
"Unlike the Bush plan, there was no room for choosing under the Clinton proposal to invest the trust fund in stocks. Individuals couldn’t opt out and they couldn’t choose to have their money invested in bonds rather than stocks, as they could have under the Bush plan."
So who really want to give our SS to the wall street fat cats. Looks like to me is was the Teamster back Bill Clinton


Really???????
What about the deregulation of the trucking industry. Both the Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control
The vote passed the house with 228 Democrats out of 274 voting YEA: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1980/h990
It also pass the Senate with a vote of 70 to 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980
"The deregulation of the trucking industry in the 1980s resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 employers that used to contribute" to the Central States Pension Fund. This is one of the factors that "led to Central States Pension Fund’s extreme under-funding problem".

What about NAFTA??? Yet another time both Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control.
It pass the Democratic controlled house with 102 out of 258 democrats voting YEA:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575
Then it passed the Senate with a vote of 61 to 38. Of that YEA vote 27 were democrat out of the 57 seat they held in the Sen
https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
"it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."
"NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits."
Is that what you call "legislation favorable to labor, the middle class (that's us) and NOT corporations?"


Then please explain why the Democrats will not support boarder security. were do you think the cheap labor is coming from??

Ok what about the Single Payer or Medicare for all plans they are pushing now? These Dems now are pushing this and it will make any private health insurance illegal including Teamcare. The can say what they want but that is there goal. Remember the line "if you like you plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep it"

The Democrats have the Unions so fooled just like they are doing to the people of color. Promising ton of free stuff and then when in control pass stuff I listed above that kills jobs in America. So go ahead and pull the Democrat level. The stand back and watch the jobs leave, taxes go up, and you Teamcare made illegal
Click to expand...
The way companies are so greedy nowadays if deregulation never happened wages and benefits would be the same or less because it would be 40 years of cuts and were going broke excuses
 
WiggleWagondrvr said:
Tell me again how horrible the insurance is here at XPO. I am a type one diabetic with exemption to drive. Insulin W/O insurance is almost $500 per 1000 unit vile. I go through 5 viles every 3 months or close to $2500. However with XPO insurance I pay $25 every three months. Test meter and test strips free. It really sux here. $25 every three months to keep me alive. How awful. BTW i am almost a 20 year employee here. I remember free healthcare but those days are gone. The coverage when i have had to use it is actually pretty good.
Click to expand...
How much are you paying for the insurance?
 
Fly-by-night said:
What about NAFTA??? Yet another time both Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control.
It pass the Democratic controlled house with 102 out of 258 democrats voting YEA:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575
Then it passed the Senate with a vote of 61 to 38. Of that YEA vote 27 were democrat out of the 57 seat they held in the Sen
https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
"it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."
"NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits."
Is that what you call "legislation favorable to labor, the middle class (that's us) and NOT corporations?"
Click to expand...

You should take your own advice and google before you post. NAFTA was Republican legislation. Remember ONE thing about Bill Clinton. He ran his campaign as a liberal however, he governed center/right. He was in the pockets of corporations as much as any good Republican.

In 1990, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari requested a free trade agreement with the U.S. In 1991, Reagan’s successor, President George H.W. Bush, began negotiations with President Salinas for a liberalized trade agreement between the two countries. Before NAFTA, Mexican tariffs on U.S. imports were much higher than U.S. tariffs on Mexican imports. Canada also joined the discussions.
George HW Bush signed the NAFTA agreement in 1992, which was also signed by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Salinas. The agreement went into effect under Bush's successor President Bill Clinton, who signed the agreement himself on Dec. 8, 1993. By January of 1994, the trade agreement was in effect.





In 1992, NAFTA was signed by outgoing President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Earlier that year, the European Union had been created by the Treaty of Maastricht.
 
Pup Driver said:
I want to add to your post . It's inconceivable that any middle class working person would vote for a republican when you look at their past history , first in 1936 Republicans ran a guy by the name of Alford Landon Gov of Kansas to run against Roosevelt with full intentions of ending Social Security (no social security for us ) Bush wanted to farm that out to his buddies on Wall Street so the fat cats will decide how much of the money we paid into will we get back after they clean up on our funds, next Medicare , they want and still do have a target on Medicare they think they could do better but the problem according to Mitch McDonnell they have no plan , Medicaid:
another target for underprivileged people , No minimum wage no standards for wages keep the poor poor and the rich get richer off the backs of cheap labor the cheaper the better for them , next no unions they must get rid of unions so they can drive down wages just like it was before the unions came in effect . See why I don't vote republican ? The democrats are the lesser of the two evils but thats all we got, a two party system . A 3rd party will never happen .
Click to expand...
It's inconceivable that a middle-class person would vote for Republican? Brother you have blinders on. To me it's inconceivable that any intelligent person would ever vote for a Democrat but if that's the way you swing go for it.
Fly-by-night said:
Ok please check before you post. A simiple Google search you would have found that Bill Clinton want to give it away not Bush.
http://www.aei.org/publication/who-tried-to-give-the-social-security-trust-fund-to-wall-street/
"Under the Bush plan, workers could choose to have some of their Social Security payroll taxes contributed to a personal account similar to a 401(k). And those workers could also choose, if they liked, to invest some of those personal account contributions in a broad stock index fund that would be managed by a government entity similar to the Thrift Savings Plan for federal government employees."

Were as Clinton plan:

"President Clinton proposed investing about 15% of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market."
"Unlike the Bush plan, there was no room for choosing under the Clinton proposal to invest the trust fund in stocks. Individuals couldn’t opt out and they couldn’t choose to have their money invested in bonds rather than stocks, as they could have under the Bush plan."
So who really want to give our SS to the wall street fat cats. Looks like to me is was the Teamster back Bill Clinton


Really???????
What about the deregulation of the trucking industry. Both the Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control
The vote passed the house with 228 Democrats out of 274 voting YEA: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1980/h990
It also pass the Senate with a vote of 70 to 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980
"The deregulation of the trucking industry in the 1980s resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 employers that used to contribute" to the Central States Pension Fund. This is one of the factors that "led to Central States Pension Fund’s extreme under-funding problem".

What about NAFTA??? Yet another time both Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control.
It pass the Democratic controlled house with 102 out of 258 democrats voting YEA:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575
Then it passed the Senate with a vote of 61 to 38. Of that YEA vote 27 were democrat out of the 57 seat they held in the Sen
https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
"it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico."
"NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits."
Is that what you call "legislation favorable to labor, the middle class (that's us) and NOT corporations?"


Then please explain why the Democrats will not support boarder security. were do you think the cheap labor is coming from??

Ok what about the Single Payer or Medicare for all plans they are pushing now? These Dems now are pushing this and it will make any private health insurance illegal including Teamcare. The can say what they want but that is there goal. Remember the line "if you like you plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor you can keep it"

The Democrats have the Unions so fooled just like they are doing to the people of color. Promising ton of free stuff and then when in control pass stuff I listed above that kills jobs in America. So go ahead and pull the Democrat level. The stand back and watch the jobs leave, taxes go up, and you Teamcare made illegal
Click to expand...
At least for this moment in time you have become my favorite "poster"(?) To this blog. Thanks for some rock solid information.
 
WiggleWagondrvr said:
At least for this moment in time you have become my favorite "poster"(?) To this blog. Thanks for some rock solid information.
Click to expand...

I wish he would have checked before he posted. His characterization of Clinton's plan is HALF true. Clinton did want to invest 20% of Social Security funds into the market instead of Treasury Bonds, however, his plan did NOT alter the fact that Social Security would remain a defined benefit plan, as it always was and continues to be. No individual or company contributions would have changed. The idea was that investing in the market generally provides better return on investment than investing in Treasury Bonds. In addition, he was working with budget surpluses as opposed to the deficits that Republicans generate.

The description of the Bush plan is accurate, as near as I could find.

"In his 1999 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed transferring $2.7 trillion of the budget surpluses to the Social Security trust funds — and investing 20 percent of the funds in the stock market, most likely in index funds. Clinton’s goal was to have about 14.5 percent of all trust fund assets in stocks. By 2014, it was estimated, the government would own nearly $1 trillion of the shares of U.S. corporations. The hope was that the higher returns from stock investments would help extend the solvency of the program as baby boomers moved into retirement."
 
Fly-by-night said:
"President Clinton proposed investing about 15% of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market."
"Unlike the Bush plan, there was no room for choosing under the Clinton proposal to invest the trust fund in stocks. Individuals couldn’t opt out and they couldn’t choose to have their money invested in bonds rather than stocks, as they could have under the Bush plan."
So who really want to give our SS to the wall street fat cats. Looks like to me is was the Teamster back Bill Clinton
Click to expand...

Your characterization of Clinton's plan is HALF true. Clinton did want to invest 20% of Social Security funds into the market instead of Treasury Bonds, however, his plan did NOT alter the fact that Social Security would remain a defined benefit plan, as it always was and continues to be. No individual or company contributions would have changed. The idea was that investing in the market generally provides better return on investment than investing in Treasury Bonds. In addition, he was working with budget surpluses as opposed to the deficits that Republicans generate.

The description of the Bush plan is accurate, as near as I could find.

"In his 1999 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed transferring $2.7 trillion of the budget surpluses to the Social Security trust funds — and investing 20 percent of the funds in the stock market, most likely in index funds. Clinton’s goal was to have about 14.5 percent of all trust fund assets in stocks. By 2014, it was estimated, the government would own nearly $1 trillion of the shares of U.S. corporations. The hope was that the higher returns from stock investments would help extend the solvency of the program as baby boomers moved into retirement."
 
Fly-by-night said:
Really???????
What about the deregulation of the trucking industry. Both the Chambers of Congress and the Pres. were in Democratic control
The vote passed the house with 228 Democrats out of 274 voting YEA: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/96-1980/h990
It also pass the Senate with a vote of 70 to 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Carrier_Act_of_1980
"The deregulation of the trucking industry in the 1980s resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 employers that used to contribute" to the Central States Pension Fund. This is one of the factors that "led to Central States Pension Fund’s extreme under-funding problem".
Click to expand...

If you do the research, and I see that you do, try to be honest and post the entire quote. If you posted the entire quote, you would have seen that "New Firms" increased dramatically in the 10 years after the legislation was passed. In 1980, there were 20,000 carriers. That number doubled by 1990 to 40,000. How many new middle class jobs were created by that legislation? That union carriers were adversely affected was an unintended consequence of this legislation. I don't know if they realized this or underestimated the effects of the lower cost of transportation. It is a fact that the CSPF was hammered by the loss of contributions from the union carriers who couldn't compete in the new market place. Bad on the Dems for that.

Here is the full text:

"Since the law was passed, the number of new firms has increased dramatically, especially low-cost, non-union carriers. By 1990, the number of licensed carriers exceeded 40,000, more than twice as in 1980. Combined with the Staggers Act (1980), intermodal freight transport surged, expanding 70 percent between 1981 and 1986.[citation needed]

Deregulation allowed manufacturers to reduce inventories, to move their products more quickly, and to be more responsive to customers. Consumers indirectly benefited from the more efficient, lower-cost transport of goods, according to a comprehensive study from the Department of Transportation.[1]

"The deregulation of the trucking industry in the 1980s resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 employers that used to contribute" to the Central States Pension Fund. This is one of the factors that "led to Central States Pension Fund’s extreme under-funding problem".[2]"
 
Fly-by-night said:
Then please explain why the Democrats will not support boarder security. were do you think the cheap labor is coming from??
Click to expand...

It is a serious misconception that Democrats do not support border security. The 9/11 hijackers arrived on Visa's and never went home. They did not crawl across a desert to get here. 90% of the illegal drugs that enter this country arrive by air or sea or through established checkpoints at the southern border. No one is carrying a 100 lb bale of weed through the desert and across a river. The worst addictive and most dangerous drugs today are manufactured right here in the USA legally. The "other" worst drug, Fentanyl , comes into your mailbox, directly from China. I have yet to hear any Democrat advocate for open borders.
 
Fly-by-night said:
Still please explain how that is fair. The union push this idea about everyone is treated the same. This sounds like there are tiers within the contract. which I been told does not happen
Click to expand...

It is union policy that all members in a specific job classification be treated identically. Unfortunately, contract negotiations don't always yield EVERYTHING you want. That's why they are call negotiations. They want this and we want that. We always meet somewhere in the middle.

Sometimes you give up a battle to be able to come back stronger and fight another day. All things considered, it's not smart to ridicule a company whose compensation package kicks the ::shit:: out of yours. They had to give a little, but they still have way more than you.
 
Pup Driver said:
Thank you for your response how ever can you give us any positive thing that the republicans have done to give even the slightest bit of anything that helped the average worker ? You mentioned right to work favored by republicans . You asked don't they have the right to not pay union dues ? The answer should be why is it by law to receive union benefits when you don't pay for them . Would this be a give away to those that don't pay ? The Supreme Court sided with Mark Janus btw Janus quit his job and went to work for a right winged think tank. Unions must give benefits and representation to nonpaying dues employees Shouldn't the unions tell them if ya don't pay your on your own to deal with management ? They should pay fair share other wise they are free loaders .Would you agree?
Click to expand...

I don't like this post...I LOVE this post. You stole my thunder! Here is the question I have put to Conservatives and Republicans for the past 5 years and I have yet to receive a response:

"PLEASE CITE ANY ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION PASSED BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, THAT PROVIDED ASSISTANCE OR RELIEF FOR WORKING MEN OR WORKING WOMEN IN THE PAST 75 YEARS."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top