What's new

XPO | Xpo Union Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
peachykeen said:
Is it fair to be forced to pay union dues if you Didn't want a union in the first place?
Click to expand...

If you take the benefits, you should pay the dues. In our case in particular, just the health care alone is worth it. A family of 4 under our Cigna plan pays 125.00 per month premium. Union dues are about 75.00 per month. Team Care is zero premium. So, the union saved you 50.00 per month immediately. If you or a family member gets sick, the Teamcare plan could save you tens of thousands of dollars over the course of your career.

Those of you opposed to union membership have yet to validate your opposition, except to say either the Teamsters are corrupt, which is no longer true OR...I'm happy with what I have. That's crazy because you're not even slightly interested in how much happier you could be or how much more you could get.

I have to admit that the company has this down to a science. They keep us just smart enough to run the equipment and just dumb enough to enjoy getting screwed.
 
WiggleWagondrvr said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it’s better said why any working class person would vote for current Republicans because of their stance against labor with the the bulk majority of them. We get the gun rights and abortion thing but your paying to high a price with them opposing anything good for labor. Also the immigration thing is not going to lead to higher paying jobs for America citizens.
 
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...
If they don't joiner or pay fair share then they should not receive union benefits . Anti union legislators make it possiable for nonunion employees to cash in on on benefits that others pay for . Would you agree? Me , personally I would never want to work nonunion .
 
Last edited:
Hollywoodz said:
If you take the benefits, you should pay the dues. In our case in particular, just the health care alone is worth it. A family of 4 under our Cigna plan pays 125.00 per month premium. Union dues are about 75.00 per month. Team Care is zero premium. So, the union saved you 50.00 per month immediately. If you or a family member gets sick, the Teamcare plan could save you tens of thousands of dollars over the course of your career.

Those of you opposed to union membership have yet to validate your opposition, except to say either the Teamsters are corrupt, which is no longer true OR...I'm happy with what I have. That's crazy because you're not even slightly interested in how much happier you could be or how much more you could get.

I have to admit that the company has this down to a science. They keep us just smart enough to run the equipment and just dumb enough to enjoy getting screwed.[/Q UOTE]

I can tell you from being on the other side of the table and having access to the P&L of a union shop the company contributes(where I work - NOT LTL ANYMORE) roughly 40% of total compensation to health, welfare and pension. The union guys have much better benefits than non union, their wages are stifled. would you rather control the other 40%, or be able to say "I have good benefits". ill take my 40%
Click to expand...
 
Hollywoodz said:
If you take the benefits, you should pay the dues. In our case in particular, just the health care alone is worth it. A family of 4 under our Cigna plan pays 125.00 per month premium. Union dues are about 75.00 per month. Team Care is zero premium. So, the union saved you 50.00 per month immediately. If you or a family member gets sick, the Teamcare plan could save you tens of thousands of dollars over the course of your career.

Those of you opposed to union membership have yet to validate your opposition, except to say either the Teamsters are corrupt, which is no longer true OR...I'm happy with what I have. That's crazy because you're not even slightly interested in how much happier you could be or how much more you could get.

I have to admit that the company has this down to a science. They keep us just smart enough to run the equipment and just dumb enough to enjoy getting screwed.
Click to expand...
Do you work at Xpo? If you do way stay if you dislike health insurance so much?
 
peachykeen said:
Do you work at Xpo? If you do way stay if you dislike health insurance so much?
Click to expand...

I'm on Medicare AND...no one is going to hire a 67 year old truck driver. I work with a great group of men and women who will be spending anywhere from 10 to 25 years working for this company. I have met many more great men and women who work for XPO in other terminals. They deserve better and I advocate for them. If you read between the lines, I advocate for YOU too! And I don't even know you.
 
Hollywoodz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes you are correct. Pres Bush did sign the agreement. Now here's were you statement goes south. Just because Bush signed it does not mean the agreement goes into effect. The trade agreement just like any agreement with any other country has to pass through congress before the agreement goes back to the Pres to sign. So yes Bush did sign an agreement. Then it went to congress which both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Democrats and then to Clinton to sign. So in short you Democrats that you say do more for the working man passed one of the biggest job killing bills in US history.
 
Hollywoodz said:
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."
Click to expand...
The different is just in case you missed it was under Bush we, the tax payer, had a choice to put our money into the market, were under Clinton we had no choice.
 
Hollywoodz said:
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.
Click to expand...
No it called current employees screwing the new hires. Google Teamster Motto and on top of the page is this "By 1919 the Teamsters adopted "Equal Pay for All" as their national slogan" Everyone know what you give it back it hard to get it back if ever.
 
Hollywoodz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really did you hear the debates???? They want to make crossing the boarder a non-criminal charge. Yes the Democrats were at on time but watch them flip:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top