Books, Recipes, Gardening AND

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18629 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't mind me asking, what do you haul with a 130" ICT and 310" wheelbase?
I have a 110" ICT and pull blanket wrap.
I don't mind at all. Those four pull explosives, electronics and medical mostly. The trls are 48' dual compartment/dual zone Danes on a 10' 6" spread. Weight isn't a problem so the trucks can be heavier. And the length is legal for Cali.
Natasfonos

Denver, CO

#18630 Sep 22, 2013
famous poster wrote:
<quoted text>OK. There was a misunderstanding. My post was NOT about bonuses. The government does NOT force businesses to pay bonuses. You misunderstood. But, no, at no point do you "owe" your employees a bonus. Now, a living wage- that's different.
No, I owe my employees whatever they agree to work for. If the business I operate does not support a living wage, then my employee may have to augment his income by working a second job or getting some trade that pays better.
Living wage is way too open ended.

You're entitled to live to the level that you're willing to work for. Work at a McJob, you earn a McLifestyle.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18631 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is pretty simple.
At no point do you owe your employees a penny more than they have agreed to work for. At any time you choose to give them more, that is your decision and should be based upon YOUR business choices, not the government or some crybaby occupy movement.
Personally, I think you're the kind of trucking company owner that I'd enjoy working for. The man I'm leased to now is the first truly honest company owner that I've met in my 14 years of doing this.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
We broker our own loads 90% of the time. There are a few contract accounts, and some customers, even though there is no contract, seem to think there is. We do our best to accommodate them as best we can. The drivers pick and choose the loads for the most part, but can opt to find their own if they would like to get somewhere other than where a known load is headed. The requirement for that being, the load they find must pay as much or more than the other load. Many times, when they call our dispatch girl with a load, she is able to get a little more than what the board advertised. So in a way, they get to set their own income. But when it comes to getting them home, all the rules go out the window. No matter what the load pays, they get home. There's no compromising there.
It's a business practice that's worked for many a year now. I don't see any reason to change it now or in the foreseeable future. No need to try and fix what's not broken.
famous poster

Palatine, IL

#18632 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I owe my employees whatever they agree to work for. If the business I operate does not support a living wage, then my employee may have to augment his income by working a second job or getting some trade that pays better.
Living wage is way too open ended.
You're entitled to live to the level that you're willing to work for. Work at a McJob, you earn a McLifestyle.
Here's the thing: If you make your living in this country, you do it by our rules.

If you are using our roads, for example, you pay for that privilege with taxes and agree to play by society's rules. It's pretty McSimple.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18633 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I owe my employees whatever they agree to work for. If the business I operate does not support a living wage, then my employee may have to augment his income by working a second job or getting some trade that pays better.
Living wage is way too open ended.
You're entitled to live to the level that you're willing to work for. Work at a McJob, you earn a McLifestyle.
Ok, now I understand better. And I agree with you to a point. If you are offering .24 a mile and the person accepts it, then its nobodies business other than yours and your employees. If the person doesn't like it they can keep looking. That's how business has been for all time.

On the other side, a starting wage is just that, a "starting" wage. It should, and must, increase periodically. If the employee/employees are increasing the company's profits, they should partake in some of that profit. That's not to say that you need to take a loss in order to advance their incomes, but something at least. They are the ones that are keeping the company alive.

Take our business for example. Pay has been stagnant and dropping even, for the past 20yrs. Some companies starting wages are what was being paid back in 85' and earlier. Back then, one could live comfortably on those wages. That's not the case today. A company driver then, could provide for his family and have enough left to buy/lease his own truck. At the average starting wage of .28 per mile, drivers have a problem covering expenses on the road.

This nation was built on the backs of the worker. Without them, there would be no nation. Now their backs are being used to stand on in order to reach the next rung up the ladder. Their backs are getting tired. And once they reach the breaking point, this whole scene is going to get ugly.

“Resist Persist Exist”

Level 6

Since: Sep 12

South El Monte, CA

#18634 Sep 22, 2013
Richard Barlow wrote:
<quoted text>

This nation was built on the backs of the worker. Without them, there would be no nation. Now their backs are being used to stand on in order to reach the next rung up the ladder. Their backs are getting tired. And once they reach the breaking point, this whole scene is going to get ugly.
thank you - empathy and humanity over mean spirited ideology
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

#18635 Sep 22, 2013
Richard Barlow wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, now I understand better. And I agree with you to a point. If you are offering .24 a mile and the person accepts it, then its nobodies business other than yours and your employees. If the person doesn't like it they can keep looking. That's how business has been for all time.
On the other side, a starting wage is just that, a "starting" wage. It should, and must, increase periodically. If the employee/employees are increasing the company's profits, they should partake in some of that profit. That's not to say that you need to take a loss in order to advance their incomes, but something at least. They are the ones that are keeping the company alive.
Take our business for example. Pay has been stagnant and dropping even, for the past 20yrs. Some companies starting wages are what was being paid back in 85' and earlier. Back then, one could live comfortably on those wages. That's not the case today. A company driver then, could provide for his family and have enough left to buy/lease his own truck. At the average starting wage of .28 per mile, drivers have a problem covering expenses on the road.
This nation was built on the backs of the worker. Without them, there would be no nation. Now their backs are being used to stand on in order to reach the next rung up the ladder. Their backs are getting tired. And once they reach the breaking point, this whole scene is going to get ugly.
Excellent!

I've read that truckers are desperately needed. Why is the invisible hand of the free market still offering 1985 wages to fill the demand?

“Resist Persist Exist”

Level 6

Since: Sep 12

South El Monte, CA

#18636 Sep 22, 2013
famous poster wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the thing: If you make your living in this country, you do it by our rules.
If you are using our roads, for example, you pay for that privilege with taxes and agree to play by society's rules. It's pretty McSimple.
disproportionately valuing investment over labor = class warfare

whiners or citizen activism? I go with the latter

“Got'em figured out?”

Since: Nov 09

Think again

#18637 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I owe my employees whatever they agree to work for. If the business I operate does not support a living wage, then my employee may have to augment his income by working a second job or getting some trade that pays better.
Living wage is way too open ended.
You're entitled to live to the level that you're willing to work for. Work at a McJob, you earn a McLifestyle.
Well, the "hangup" is the 'owe' concept that has been made repeatedly.

McJob/McLifestyle point about the quality of your drivers was previously made too ... I saw that before it was deleted (I'm "stealing" it, I didn't write it!)

Obviously the owner won't pay the business into failure, but you 'owe' yourself and your family, and your business (not the government) to retain quality drivers as much as is feasible.

“Got'em figured out?”

Since: Nov 09

Think again

#18640 Sep 22, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. I guess Unions are not human. It seems a bit one-sided on their part as far as rights go.
I eventually do my homework, but sometimes slough it off. I was thinking about Citizens United case in particular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_person...
<<<.... excerpts pertaining to campaign contributions>>>
The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech. Opponents of these decisions have argued that if all corporate rights under the Constitution were abolished, it would clear the way for greater regulation of campaign spending and contributions. It should be noted, however, that neither decision relied on the concept of corporate personhood, and the Buckley decision in particular deals with the rights of individuals and political committees, not corporations.

<<< Citizens United decision by SCOTUS also applies to associations and unions >>>
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

But "corporate personhood" dates way back because of legal proceedings/obligations and contracts. From the same source:

<<<... excerpts>>
As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.[3][4]

The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word "taxpayer" several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[6]

Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood,[7] even though the Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment.[8]

{I presume that same legalities/contract bases applies to unions too, but my homework is incomplete on that.]
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

#18641 Sep 22, 2013
Rose of Tralee wrote:
<quoted text>
disproportionately valuing investment over labor = class warfare
whiners or citizen activism? I go with the latter
I've been noticing in the threads the *logic* that corporations have a "responsibility to their shareholders". While that is true, it's usually said in a spirit that such an arrangement trumps duties to the nation and it's citizens. For example, 90% of Americans approved of stronger background checks on gun purchases but Congress ignored that. The NRA are shareholders of sorts to the Congressional corporations. Does Congress have more of an obligation to better-paying special interest groups than citizens? It almost seems like we are being set-up to accept that.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18642 Sep 22, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent!
I've read that truckers are desperately needed. Why is the invisible hand of the free market still offering 1985 wages to fill the demand?
This is the easiest post to answer so far.

There is no shortage of drivers!!

There is only a shortage of "cheap" drivers. At last count, there are aprox 2.7 million CDL holders that are not using those CDLs.

Next time you see a commercial that claims "You can make $50,000 your first year being a truck driver." Grab a calculator and run the math on .26 per mile @ 120,000 miles per year. Now run those numbers using .45 per mile.

As a corporate exec, which driver do you think puts more money in your pocket?

What is more profitable for the execs isn't always profitable for the company and its workers.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18643 Sep 22, 2013
Rose of Tralee wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you - empathy and humanity over mean spirited ideology
Hi Ms Rose. How's tricks?

Listen, next time, throw a rock this way to get my attention. With all of the long winded posts that we galoots have been leaving, I missed yours.

Better yet, just throw your bra in the ring. Guaranteed, all the guys here will gladly give you the floor.:D

“Dragon my tail.”

Since: Jun 09

Wherever

#18644 Sep 22, 2013
Very interesting conversation over the past couple of days. Definitely food for thought (throws bra in the ring).
famous poster

Hoffman Estates, IL

#18645 Sep 22, 2013
Rose of Tralee wrote:
<quoted text>
disproportionately valuing investment over labor = class warfare
whiners or citizen activism? I go with the latter
I think class warfare has everything to do with it. The way it has been orchestrated by the corporate owned media, it does seem like literal class warfare looms on the horizon.

It's all sorta well and reasonably good that republicans are complaining about government. They should. But, they seriously act like government was small and fine just a few years ago under GW Bush and that it will again be small and fine under any POTUS with a parenthetical R after his name. It didn't just get big and vindictive under Obama. It's been going on for a few decades...

These people whine about poor people (who by definition have no money) not paying taxes yet defend multi billion dollar corporations not paying taxes (and getting stipends) because they are *job creators*. Meanwhile, those welfare receiving job creators are cutting jobs because lowering payroll means bigger profits. They owe that to shareholders, I guess?

People are rationalizing the persecution of other AMERICANS(!)...because it makes fiscal sense to do so. Oh. Not a single Wall Street scumbag goes to jail for the economic meltdown of '07 but, lets drug test food stamp recipients in hopes of getting one of them for smoking a joint with their cousin. We can save tens of thousands and it only costs hundreds of thousands. You steal big, we the people respect that. You smoke a joint your cousin gave you, your effing kids don't eat.

That's not really class warfare. It's homicide.
famous poster

Arlington Heights, IL

#18649 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
My son works part time at a fast food restaurant. He's able to pay his rent, buy his food and still manages to have enough left over to get things he wants.
He's actually very happy with his situation. Seems to me that his company pays a living wage to me.
"Living wage" is subjective. I don't think anyone should expect to be able to raise a family on a McJob's wages. To expect that is McStupid.
P.S. I saw a post regarding the income of the CEO of McDonald's. If he took no income whatsoever and donated it all to the employees, the raise to their income would about $0.04/ hour.
If that CEO is capable of increasing his company's profits to the degree that they feel he's worth him millions in wages and bonuses, that's between him and the shareholders.
People need to stop whining about other people's money.
Sounds like your son's McJob is awesome! Is his full time job as a CEO of an oil company?

Perhaps the Americans working full-time at McJobs are putting themselves in a higher tax bracket?

I don't care what stupid shareholders give a CEO for showing up at meetings. You people are stoopit to try to pretend that that is what this is about. It's about the workers.

If you're going to make a boatload of money in this country, you pay a living wage to Americans who help you fill that boat.
famous poster

Arlington Heights, IL

#18651 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
Minimum wage means if I could pay you less, I would. If you're not happy with your quality of life, do something to improve your situation. Don't blame the guy who pays you a fair wage for the work you do.
Richard's drivers make at least $250 a day. Maybe you could go get your CDL, drive for someone willing to teach you and then when you're good enough to drive for him, you can get something that good.
I left the home improvement retail world to drive a truck, buy a truck, pay it off and be debt free now. I've done nothing special except make sacrifices.
Stop asking for a living wage when all you're worth is a fair wage for the work you do.
I wasn't applying for a job. I'm addressing the labor concerns of American workers. I didn't ask for your resume either. Pay attention!

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18655 Sep 22, 2013
Hello. Can anyone see me? I've tried posting 3 times, and none have shown up.

Was I a bad boy in some way?:(
famous poster

Arlington Heights, IL

#18656 Sep 22, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
What you're asking for is more than you're worth, apparently, or you'd be making a living wage.
Personally, I believe that all Americans need to learn one thing. Live within your means.
Period.
OR, reading comprehension...

“Illegitimi non carborundum”

Since: Apr 10

...

#18660 Sep 23, 2013
Natasfonos wrote:
<quoted text>
It's nice when a certain mod has the weekend off ;)
It'll be biz as usual come 7am Monday morning.
I've had a pretty good weekend so far. Tomorrow is my Sunday then Tuesday will be my 2nd sunday, then Wednesday will be my Monday ;)
Then it's off to Boise Idaho. Fun, eh? ;)
Have you ever been to the old Idaho state prison there? It is open for tours. That is one of the prisons where riots occurred in the 70's and practiced hanging. The coolest thing is a museum inside the prison that is dedicated to multi-million dollar weaponry display.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Topix Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Delphi murders 25 min Peck404 3
Bi/Gay Skype 2 hr daddy 14
Pedaphile michael tod wortham 6 hr Zoo 1
Are white people being erased from the earth? (Nov '13) 7 hr Seduciary 90
wake up white people 12 hr Johnny 14
Shy girl 15 yrs old 17 hr George 11
WIDOWED DIVORCED , SINGLE or , MOM WITH TEENAG... 17 hr George 1
More from around the web