[cdswans]

Originally Posted by jonp

Yeah, how did that new union thug at Saturn help them out? Saturn going bye-bye. I do hope you folks know that this is all about the unions trying to keep out outside truck companies to form a monopoly in the ports?

From the article . .

On Sept. 14, Swift dropped the $18-an-hour wage in favor of a pay-by-the-load system, similar to that used by most other port trucking companies. Drivers are now paid $21 to $70 per load.

Given the heavy congestion at the port, drivers are often able to complete only one load per day. In some cases, Swift has had to add to drivers' paychecks to ensure they are paid at least $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum wage, according to Ricardo Hidalgo, a Teamsters organizer.

In NLRB testimony, Swift officials have said that traffic at the port has been much lower than expected, due to the recession. In its first four months of operations under the Clean Trucks Program, Swift lost $4 million.

Never mind Saturn. Do you think the union did any good here? Can you imagine you're the guy who picked up the $21 load and had to sit on it for 8 or 9 hours? Do you think these guys are being told this is what they can expect when they hired on? Do you think Swift would make up the federal minimum if they didn't have the union breathing down it's neck? Personally, I don't give a rats rear end if Swift lost $40 million. That is a risk they fully understood and willfully undertook. The guys driving these trucks have committed there time and skills to do a job and they deserve equitable compensation. It is up to Swift to manage their business, provide the loads and get the wheels rolling, not the drivers.

I am not pro union by any stretch. I say put everyone on the clock at $18 an hour and pay them time and a half after 40. I don't see that happening any time soon. If the Teamsters are the only organization in a position to address the realities of port business and balance that with the law and the needs of working people, I say give them a shot. You would propose that some independent with an antique truck who will pick off a turd load for crack money is the answer?

[bentstrider]

All this time I thought belpre's animosity toward "coolie-carrier" was a company driver vs. O/O Indie argument.
Since this really about poor pay, I guess I'll err on the side of caution to be prevented from being thrown into the "ignore-pile".

BTW, where did the term "coolie-carrier" originate from anyway?
All I know is that it was/is a term for cheap labor from the Asiatic countries.

[Flying W]

A great post folks. The line that hits home is the part about adding to a drivers wage to bring it up to minimum wage. Cdswans...good input on the matching minimum wage.

Has anyone heard what happened to that case about overtime laws applying to drivers? I heard it was an Interstate Dist. driver in WA that was fired that brought a lawsuit against them claiming he was due overtime pay for all hours in excess of 8 a day or 40 a week. I'm assuming it failed as it would have had a huge impact on the industry, but I never did hear for sure.

[cdswans]

Originally Posted by Flying W

Has anyone heard what happened to that case about overtime laws applying to drivers?

I was looking to answer this question when I stumbled upon this article (within the new thread):

http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/a...tml#post464801

It's an eye opener and it's kind of scary when you think about it.

The answer to your question lies within this thread:

http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/a...formation.html

Read through it and the follow the links within . . you'll find all the threads have a lot in common and maybe a few surprises?

Originally Posted by Malaki86

They didn't say if those drivers are paid hourly or by the mile/percentage. It'd be nice to get paid for the 30+ hours overtime we put in week after week.

[Flying W]

Well I got the company wrong, but the overtime part right. Some interesting reading, and the comments pretending to know the law more than the Supreme Court gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for the response cdswans as I always wondered what happened with that case.

[cdswans]

http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_ne.../123009-09.htm

The article includes a link to the judgement. It's kind of long (boring) but it reveals an interesting story.

[zipy46]

One of these days drivers will wake up and start shutting companies like Swift

down .... :smokin:

[cdswans]

Originally Posted by zipy46

One of these days drivers will wake up and . . :smokin:

. . work everyday to rescind the trucker's exemption to the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

It isn't Swift and it isn't any company like or unlike Swift . . it's the law. The law needs to be changed.

[homer]

Originally Posted by zipy46

One of these days drivers will wake up and start shutting companies like Swift

down .... :smokin:

if you had no experience you would stay there a year and leave. they keep training up a new bunch.
the real problem is our tax dollars are used to encourage these american trucking association members swift,england etc to train new drivers every year and devalue our experience and safe driving records,.
when these subsidies make it profitable to use inexperienced drivers and delay the lawsuits from the accidents and pay the damages the system is broken unless your an ata member

[bentstrider]

Originally Posted by zipy46

One of these days drivers will wake up and start shutting companies like Swift

down .... :smokin:

Same should go for any company, big or small, that runs its drivers into the ground.