I need help with this Covenant Trans. thing

They're being stingy there. They won't give you the physical because they don't want you working for 'em while on that medication. Their insurance company doesn't want to pay for it.

 

Sounds like a noble effort, Nite, but I don't think your efforts will bear much fruit. This is because you're not the first one who's been burned by these jokers this way. Believe me, if those in the past who've been in your boat weren't able to do anything to ding them, you won't either. I know those guys didn't get far because the company is screwing you today the same way they've screwed others in the past. This company wouldn't be doing this if they hadn't been able to get away with it yesteryear.

Unfortunately, this describes a lot of outfits and a lot of drivers' futile efforts to right many wrongs.

 

I think you have bad information on Star Tansport being bought out by Covenant. I have spoken to both companies and they have no relationship.

 

You have got to be kidding!~ Do you really think $5,000.00 is incentive for a trucking company as income for them? You need a reality check.

 

Yeah, tell me another one. These companies make money on their turnover somehow or there wouldn't be any turnover. At least not the 100% or higher turnover some outfits see. They're not idiots inside these companies, as much as we like to think they are. If a big trucking company wants to maximize profits, I know two ways it can do it--either eliminate turnover, something that is an unnecessary drag on profits, or get help from Uncle Sam in the form of training grants and tax breaks.

Sitting trucks eat profits. Stockholders like profits. Stockholders will ##### a fit if they're not getting a maximum return. Not only this, but the law says that a publically-traded company MUST do everything in its power to maximize those profits. I don't hear any stockholders ########, nor do I see the government investigating anything. This is because in the end, those sitting trucks aren't a problem for the outfits and thus don't devour profits. I know if I held stock in a trucking company, I'd be ######## if a company's profits had to pay the fixed costs on a bunch of empty, cleaned-out rigs. Some companies have lots of empty cleaned-outs sitting around for days and even weeks at a time waiting on new hires. That's a hell of an avoidable opportunity cost problem that is easily solved.

All you guys who say the companies aren't benefiting from turnover need to put down your crack pipes. If a truck sits at a company for any length of time, or that company hires on a welfare-to-work beneficiary, the company gets some sort of benefit to help offset the opportunity cost of the sitting truck or the training cost of the newbie. Some have figured out how to milk this.

 

It's good someone else sees what about three (unfortunately so few) of us here see. I figured out the companies are benefiting from their turnover in about my third week on the job. You can thank Clinton and his welfare-to-work shenanigans.

Companies get benefits from the government for newbie training, you better believe it. Some may make more from those benefits than from what their sitting trucks would make running down the road. Up to a certain limit, this is true. Companies have figured out how to play it to the limit. You can call it welfare for the rich.

 

The government gives these companies welfare in the form of grants and such, but that assistance is capped. If it weren't, trucking companies wouldn't have any trucks on the road. All trucks would be sitting so the outfits could suck the government sugar titty to the max.

When a company consistently has about 150 percent turnover, you now know the reason. Nope, it won't go to 200, unless we're talking SwiftQuit's acquisition of MS Carriers. Those one-time deals cause spikes in turnover, yes. But most of the larger companies' turnover rates hover around a certain figure, kind of like a hive of honeybees hovers around its queen.

But turnover is never much below 150 percent at bigger companies, either. 150 percent seems to be the optimum turnover rate the bigger fish adhere to. In other words, it's calculated. If it were random, there would be wild fluctuations in turnover at those places. Some weeks 2 new hires would be at their orientations, while some weeks would see 200 or 300. We don't see that. Every week is (pretty much) the same at a company like SwiftQuit. Just about every seat is taken in every orientation class, and wallflowers are few. This is because it's planned. These companies decide ahead of time how much turnover they will have and stick to it.

There are advantages to this regime. One big advantage is the fact bad apple drivers get weeded out efficiently without harming company profits too much. If you're a company manager and you want to be able to get rid of your problem children in a hurry, planned turnover is the way to do it. This ensures your turnover doesn't turn into an uncontrollable wildfire some months, which will break a company in a hurry. This is because beyond a certain point, the government steps back and companies are on their own. The sugar titty never has more than a certain amount of milk.