Teamsters seeking to organize port truckers

Swift has always been less than compliant on dedicated and the port will fall under that group.From a operations view, you provide the service at any cost and once there is a liability, you terminate those with the most exposure (Normally after there is a Carrier of the Year Award).

Robertson wrote:

Swift has always been less than compliant on dedicated and the port will fall under that group.From a operations view, you provide the service at any cost and once there is a liability, you terminate those with the most exposure (Normally after there is a Carrier of the Year Award).

Absolutely correct! Swift and their sorry-ass mgmt will do whatever is necessary to initially secure business. Later,as other senior (experienced) drivers have posted, they will terminate a few or offer lease/op deal.They will always continue hiring inexep. new drivers,as it always represents the cheapest labor cost.As for Swift's new foray into inter-modal and port ops., I have no doubts about your assessment and those who were recently terminated.Good call on Swift!

teamsters want to eliminate the owner/operator trucker from hauling intermodal boxes period. they claimed for years they were out to help the owner/operator truckers organize who haul 95% of ocean cargo but they lied. this CA. clean truck plan is their doing. They figure to bring in a few big companies that will employee only company drivers. the support from owner-operators has dried up once drivers realized what was being done to them. remember this plan includes over the road truckers as well as local truckers who haul intermodal freight. everyone will have to give up the right to ownership if the teamsters & their wacko green groups succeed.

Wait a minute. This driver is 21 years old. Would Swift actually hire someone that young to drive an 18 wheeler? Most insurance companies won't allow companies to hire that young for a commercial driver.
The article said he damaged the tires of a pickup, not a tractor. Perhaps there's something more going on here than is indicated. Perhaps the reporter should have delved more into the story than what actually came out in print. Maybe I'm suspicious, but could he have been a union "plant"?

I was working for swift at the wilmington yard since the begining swift lied to us. management told us we were going to be paid hourly then they change it to salary; if we work 12 hours we were only get paid for 8 no overtime paid; and to make thing worst swift forced us to take overwiegth load if we refused to, they threanted to fire us!!! and for the worker who was framed of cut the terminal managers tire he is innocent and he is 24

Swift would hire a death monk with one leg, one eye, one finger, who left a dead little boy in the drivers room during the interview...

40yearsoftrucking wrote:

Swift would hire a death monk with one leg, one eye, one finger, who left a dead little boy in the drivers room during the interview...

I love it, your absolutly right about this company Swift. They are a real work of art. It seems the Teamsters have sold out their values to the Devil to try & destroy the American owner/operator at the port terminals. How does this Change-to-Win labor group, Teamsters, & this "Coalition for Clean&SafePorts" tie together. Are they all the same?

40yearsoftrucking wrote:

Swift would hire a death monk with one leg, one eye, one finger, who left a dead little boy in the drivers room during the interview...

I love it, your absolutely right. Swift is scrapping the bottom of the sh*t bucket. It's amazing the Teamsters are so concerned about getting rid of the owner/operators that service the ports they'll actually make deals with the Devil.

anyone who would cpntinue to work after they were told they would be paid for 8 hours while working for 12 deserves what they get, If I was told that the door definitely would not have hit me in the a**.

If you get illegial orders over the quallcomm you don't have to pay a laywer to take the case. they will work pro bono knowing they will rake in the big bucks screwing the company ( and you to probably)

as much as it pains me to say it, I actually hope the union wins and gets these guys rehired.

The Teamsters union is only interested in one goal here, that's removing the right to individual truck ownership & forcing everyone hauling containers to become a company employee for a few mega trucking companies. They lied to drivers nationwide about what their true plan was when starting this port trucker campaign. The union said they would work out a plan that would preserve the O/O status. They abandoned this & decided to take the easy way out just making everyone company drivers. This green coalition (Clean&Safe Ports) was formed by them & a labor group called Change-To-Win to do exactly what they are doing now, force all owner-operators out of the intermodal trucking business. This coalitions leadership has only one environmental concern, that's pushing through the employee mandate at major port terminals. Don't be fooled, it won't stop with local port trucks either. They want OTR & the rail yards. OOIDA is asleep at the wheel while this group threatens their basic membership. OOIDA's leadership better wake up soon.

The teamsters will not be able to pull this off. They will first have to learn spanish,swahii,iranian,russian and chinese.

Long Haul Driver wrote:

as much as it pains me to say it, I actually hope the union wins and gets these guys rehired.

Judging from your previous posts stating yourself as a former O/O, I find it amazing you would concur with Swift+Union collaboration to eliminate indep. truckers from port+intermodal/drayage work.Although I respect your commentary as an experienced O/O and TOPIX.COM editor, you are definitely misguided by siding with the Swift/Union plan.40Yrsoftruckin's excellent post is on the money. Swift/Union cooperation is nothing more than a ploy to secure port contracts and retain cheap company driver labor.They could care less about independent O/O drivers.The sooner this possible competition is eliminated-the better for their business.Neither free nor fair trade is happening here.OOIDA best wake up and mobilize its membership base to fight this issue if they wish to stay in intermodal ops.

Hammerdown-Hammerlane wrote:

<quoted text>
Judging from your previous posts stating yourself as a former O/O, I find it amazing you would concur with Swift+Union collaboration to eliminate indep. truckers from port+intermodal/drayage work.Although I respect your commentary as an experienced O/O and TOPIX.COM editor, you are definitely misguided by siding with the Swift/Union plan.40Yrsoftruckin's excellent post is on the money. Swift/Union cooperation is nothing more than a ploy to secure port contracts and retain cheap company driver labor.They could care less about independent O/O drivers.The sooner this possible competition is eliminated-the better for their business.Neither free nor fair trade is happening here.OOIDA best wake up and mobilize its membership base to fight this issue if they wish to stay in intermodal ops.

you need to read the article posted.. "About 50 protesters marched into the offices of a Port of Los Angeles freight hauler today and demanded the reinstatement of four truckers who they said were wrongfully terminated." in this case the union is supporting the fired drivers NOT supporting Swift. that is what I mean when I said this time I hope the union wins.

the fact that the union was supporting 4 non union drivers that Swift fired is a shock in it self.

Long Haul Driver wrote:

<quoted text>
you need to read the article posted.. "About 50 protesters marched into the offices of a Port of Los Angeles freight hauler today and demanded the reinstatement of four truckers who they said were wrongfully terminated." in this case the union is supporting the fired drivers NOT supporting Swift. that is what I mean when I said this time I hope the union wins.
the fact that the union was supporting 4 non union drivers that Swift fired is a shock in it self.

Thanks for the update.I stand corrected on my previous post.Also, nice to see a quick and timely reply.I also support workers'/drivers' rights.Since Swift fired them,I hope those drivers get job reinstatement or better yet,a fine paid by Swift and re-employment at another better intermodal carrier.I will admit to not reading the entire article and taking your comments somewhat out of your intended context.I am glad to see you are not a die-hard Swift supporter.I refuse to become a corporate lackey and suck up to any company,even one I work for(NOT Swift).I have criticized Swift's lousy mgmt practices and NOT their drivers.A surprise no doubt the union is defending non-union drivers'
employment rights.Intelligent commentary+reply.

please don't make fun of swift, i think they are "dead man walking", or as kevin on xm says why some (general, not at swift) are "zombie" trucking companies. seriously, i think the banks would fold them down but can't get anything for the asset's. read arrows offer to sell 05 volvo's with no money down and 800 a month payments, and a 1 year warrenty, still a lot sitting. who now would buy the terminials? when i was with swift, gone 2 months now, o/o were higher on the list for loads than company trucks, on the other hand they would pay and deadhead their trucks out of bad areas, i would go on my nickle and then find ton's of company trucks sitting there.

ken wrote:

please don't make fun of swift, i think they are "dead man walking", or as kevin on xm says why some (general, not at swift) are "zombie" trucking companies. seriously, i think the banks would fold them down but can't get anything for the asset's. read arrows offer to sell 05 volvo's with no money down and 800 a month payments, and a 1 year warrenty, still a lot sitting. who now would buy the terminials? when i was with swift, gone 2 months now, o/o were higher on the list for loads than company trucks, on the other hand they would pay and deadhead their trucks out of bad areas, i would go on my nickle and then find ton's of company trucks sitting there.

No need to make fun of them.Swift does that to itself or rather its drivers enough.Just had to correct my original post to Long Haul Trucking RE:
Swift firing of Wilmington,CA (LA) port drivers.I don't and wouldn't recommend driving for them when there are many choices among better carriers.
As I have stated before,we live in a capitalist system whereby you are free to work elsewhere.Some
Swifties have taken it personal-just business.You
like your company-STAY! Don't like the situation,I
suggest one move on to better company.Swift trucks
parked making no money-I agree dead man walking!!!

Hammerdown-Hammerlane wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the update.I stand corrected on my previous post.Also, nice to see a quick and timely reply.I also support workers'/drivers' rights.Since Swift fired them,I hope those drivers get job reinstatement or better yet,a fine paid by Swift and re-employment at another better intermodal carrier.I will admit to not reading the entire article and taking your comments somewhat out of your intended context.I am glad to see you are not a die-hard Swift supporter.I refuse to become a corporate lackey and suck up to any company,even one I work for(NOT Swift).I have criticized Swift's lousy mgmt practices and NOT their drivers.A surprise no doubt the union is defending non-union drivers'
employment rights.Intelligent commentary+reply.

Swift is a company with quite a few issues everything from hiring illegals to hiring disqualified divers. until there is a total overhaul from the top down it will continue to be the butt of all the jokes. it is pretty bad when JB Hunt drivers laugh at them.

Long Haul Driver wrote:

<quoted text>
Swift is a company with quite a few issues everything from hiring illegals to hiring disqualified divers. until there is a total overhaul from the top down it will continue to be the butt of all the jokes. it is pretty bad when JB Hunt drivers laugh at them.

Again,you are quite correct!JB Hunt once stood for Just Been Hired-Unfortunately Not Trained.NOT today as JB no longer accepts trainee drivers and requires 6Mos current OTR,I believe for hire. Swift has now replaced JB in untrained drivers category. That's what I meant when I said making someone a driver trainer/mentor with only 6-12Mos(Swift will accept 6Mos),is like the blind leading the blind.Nothing safe about its practice or hiring disqualified drivers or illegals!Better for a Swiftie to move on to better pay with JB after 6Mos OTR, than stay with Swift.JB has long established its intermodal capacity here in NE.I don't know about JB's intermodal business in LA.I would think they can give Swift some needed fair competition from another mega-carrier,but NOT at the expense of O/O Independents,like Swift's plan.