GM, Chrysler sue Allied shippers over cars "held hostage"

[Whitten]

7 pages of trying to figure out who was at fault...on a situation that is not that complicated. (Shakes head)

I deal with all of the same issues in my line of work. I get surcharge changes nearly weekly from my suppliers to cover the fluctuations in their costs...that gets passed down the line to my customers, very simple, however this is understood upfront.

If Allied's contract with the manufacturers set a per car cost per zone or destination then so be it. If they did not write it in that their surcharges were due to fluctuations based on market prices for fuel and so forth then Allied is obliged to take the loss on the chin and deliver as promised until they renegotiate their contract.(see 1-2 year long contracts rather than 10 year contracts) If allied could not prepare for rising fuel costs...well it goes without saying and I will leave it at that.

I don't blame the union for sticking up for the drivers...that is the whole reason why they are there. That being said if Allied does not have the ability or want to take the loss of operating in the red then they should have had that in their union contract when they got in bed with the union. (also Allied's fault)

This is why you have contracts and lawyers in the first place. Allied either continues to hold up their end of the deal and suffer through the rough patch, or declares to GM that they cannot or will not be able to honor their contract due to the risk of bankruptcy, finds a way to break their contract, and allows GM find a hauling company that they can negotiate a new deal with. At any rate any inventory that is currently in Allied's possession should be delivered as scheduled and new inventory should be refused so that other companies can take over where they dropped the ball. Either way Allied is going to end up in court in hot water and if I were the legal team over at Allied...I would be looking for a new line of work because you obviously did not understand the semesters of Law school where they covered contract law, binding agreements, and or any other principal for legal counsel.

[kbui]

Originally Posted by Whitten

7 pages of trying to figure out who was at fault...on a situation that is not that complicated. (Shakes head)

I deal with all of the same issues in my line of work. I get surcharge changes nearly weekly from my suppliers to cover the fluctuations in their costs...that gets passed down the line to my customers, very simple, however this is understood upfront.

If Allied's contract with the manufacturers set a per car cost per zone or destination then so be it. If they did not write it in that their surcharges were due to fluctuations based on market prices for fuel and so forth then Allied is obliged to take the loss on the chin and deliver as promised until they renegotiate their contract.(see 1-2 year long contracts rather than 10 year contracts) If allied could not prepare for rising fuel costs...well it goes without saying and I will leave it at that.

I don't blame the union for sticking up for the drivers...that is the whole reason why they are there. That being said if Allied does not have the ability or want to take the loss of operating in the red then they should have had that in their union contract when they got in bed with the union. (also Allied's fault)

This is why you have contracts and lawyers in the first place. Allied either continues to hold up their end of the deal and suffer through the rough patch, or declares to GM that they cannot or will not be able to honor their contract due to the risk of bankruptcy, finds a way to break their contract, and allows GM find a hauling company that they can negotiate a new deal with. At any rate any inventory that is currently in Allied's possession should be delivered as scheduled and new inventory should be refused so that other companies can take over where they dropped the ball. Either way Allied is going to end up in court in hot water and if I were the legal team over at Allied...I would be looking for a new line of work because you obviously did not understand the semesters of Law school where they covered contract law, binding agreements, and or any other principal for legal counsel.

Excellent ! So simple yet many can't seem to get it....I have the same problem. I always work on fixed price contracts. If I screwed up and underestimated my costs, I am working for free and my kids will be eating Ramen noodles until the next contract

[Whitten]

Originally Posted by kbui

Excellent ! So simple yet many can't seem to get it....I have the same problem. I always work on fixed price contracts. If I screwed up and underestimated my costs, I am working for free and my kids will be eating Ramen noodles until the next contract

My guys joke that they make so little money now compared to 3 years ago that they have been stuck with eating potted meat

[fastball]

Originally Posted by Whitten

7 pages of trying to figure out who was at fault...on a situation that is not that complicated. (Shakes head)

I deal with all of the same issues in my line of work. I get surcharge changes nearly weekly from my suppliers to cover the fluctuations in their costs...that gets passed down the line to my customers, very simple, however this is understood upfront.

If Allied's contract with the manufacturers set a per car cost per zone or destination then so be it. If they did not write it in that their surcharges were due to fluctuations based on market prices for fuel and so forth then Allied is obliged to take the loss on the chin and deliver as promised until they renegotiate their contract.(see 1-2 year long contracts rather than 10 year contracts) If allied could not prepare for rising fuel costs...well it goes without saying and I will leave it at that.

I don't blame the union for sticking up for the drivers...that is the whole reason why they are there. That being said if Allied does not have the ability or want to take the loss of operating in the red then they should have had that in their union contract when they got in bed with the union. (also Allied's fault)

This is why you have contracts and lawyers in the first place. Allied either continues to hold up their end of the deal and suffer through the rough patch, or declares to GM that they cannot or will not be able to honor their contract due to the risk of bankruptcy, finds a way to break their contract, and allows GM find a hauling company that they can negotiate a new deal with. At any rate any inventory that is currently in Allied's possession should be delivered as scheduled and new inventory should be refused so that other companies can take over where they dropped the ball. Either way Allied is going to end up in court in hot water and if I were the legal team over at Allied...I would be looking for a new line of work because you obviously did not understand the semesters of Law school where they covered contract law, binding agreements, and or any other principal for legal counsel.

Excuse us if we're not all attorneys and accountants. The bottom line is that drivers held property that they had absolutely no right to. No matter what the contracts said, didn't say, who paid who, or what the fuc^ing price of rice in China was that day, they should have delivered every single Camaro and Silverado on their schedule on time.

Those who supported the drivers in any way here should be prosecuted as well as the drivers themselves. At minimum, they should all be immediately terminated from their jobs.

[Apex Motorsports]

Originally Posted by fastball

Excuse us if we're not all attorneys and accountants. The bottom line is that drivers held property that they had absolutely no right to. No matter what the contracts said, didn't say, who paid who, or what the fuc^ing price of rice in China was that day, they should have delivered every single Camaro and Silverado on their schedule on time.

But what many seem to be confused about is that the drivers did so because their bosses, not the union, told them to do so. There is a lot of misplaced anger in this thread.

[Blueclyde]

I'm the last guy to agree with unions but I have to agree that Allied's bad decisions and business practices are really the issue here. The union is maybe inflexible but Allied has clearly made some very serious mis-steps in running their business.

[cmore]

Originally Posted by Blueclyde

I'm the last guy to agree with unions but I have to agree that Allied's bad decisions and business practices are really the issue here. The union is maybe inflexible but Allied has clearly made some very serious mis-steps in running their business.

That is the way I see it also.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I can't believe there are still comments blaming the drivers......

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Fearer2010SS

I wish I could steal property and hold it hostage for 15% pay increases. Does this really surprise anyone since this is the Teamsters union we're talking about? They did some good back in the day for fair wages but they have been nothing but a thug union since Jimmy Hoffa. If this was the my Camaro with all the money I put down Allied and the Teamsters would be seeing a lawsuit from me also.

The union doesn't run the company. The company made this decision because they couldn't convince the union to shred their contract for a worse one. You probably wouldn't take a loss unless you absolutely had to take a loss. I know I wouldn't do it. The company is doing everything it can to make up for bad negotiating when it made its original contracts.

Originally Posted by ambientweather

Here is a great on topic story of Chrysler Union workers getting drunk and smoking pot during lunch http://http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/23/chrysler-auto-workers-caught-camera-drinking-beer-smoking-pot-lunch-break/

They thought they wouldn't get fired and they would have still been working there if the cameras were not rolling. This is what unions breed.

This has nothing to do with the topic. The unions do not breed pot-smoking employees. If that was commonplace, then it wouldn't be newsworthy and therefore would not be on the news.

Originally Posted by Whitten

7 pages of trying to figure out who was at fault...on a situation that is not that complicated. (Shakes head)

I deal with all of the same issues in my line of work. I get surcharge changes nearly weekly from my suppliers to cover the fluctuations in their costs...that gets passed down the line to my customers, very simple, however this is understood upfront.

If Allied's contract with the manufacturers set a per car cost per zone or destination then so be it. If they did not write it in that their surcharges were due to fluctuations based on market prices for fuel and so forth then Allied is obliged to take the loss on the chin and deliver as promised until they renegotiate their contract.(see 1-2 year long contracts rather than 10 year contracts) If allied could not prepare for rising fuel costs...well it goes without saying and I will leave it at that.

I don't blame the union for sticking up for the drivers...that is the whole reason why they are there. That being said if Allied does not have the ability or want to take the loss of operating in the red then they should have had that in their union contract when they got in bed with the union. (also Allied's fault)

This is why you have contracts and lawyers in the first place. Allied either continues to hold up their end of the deal and suffer through the rough patch, or declares to GM that they cannot or will not be able to honor their contract due to the risk of bankruptcy, finds a way to break their contract, and allows GM find a hauling company that they can negotiate a new deal with. At any rate any inventory that is currently in Allied's possession should be delivered as scheduled and new inventory should be refused so that other companies can take over where they dropped the ball. Either way Allied is going to end up in court in hot water and if I were the legal team over at Allied...I would be looking for a new line of work because you obviously did not understand the semesters of Law school where they covered contract law, binding agreements, and or any other principal for legal counsel.

Someone actually got it!

Originally Posted by Blueclyde

I'm the last guy to agree with unions but I have to agree that Allied's bad decisions and business practices are really the issue here. The union is maybe inflexible but Allied has clearly made some very serious mis-steps in running their business.

Unions are made up of great people, but the organizations as whole entities tend to get on my nerves. Agreeing with the union here is something I also do with a grain of salt. In this case, it seems pretty clear to me that the company simply doesn't know how to run its finances.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I can't believe there are still comments blaming the drivers......

[5THGENRS]

i commented about this issue in the same fashion that Whitten did except i did that back on page 4

Any who, has anyone else been able to find any videos about this beside the clickondetroit link on page 1? Havent found any other videos anywhere, not even youtube

[O2BQIK]

Originally Posted by jeff4946

How much have you paid to help keep better wages for our families?

Why should I pay to improve your wages? I work hard, and by virtue of that hard work, am recognized by my company with periodic raises and promotions. It's merit-based. If my company decides not to reward my hard work, I can decide to look for another place to work, or start my own business.

If you want better wages, I'd expect you to work hard (as I presume you do). Not pay for it. What's the point of paying for better wages anyway? Doesn't that cancel out? If you're going to pay $60K in union dues over your career, I hope you realize that's a lot of money that could have been in your pocket instead. You're making someone else rich pretty willingly.

[Whitten]

Originally Posted by fastball

Excuse us if we're not all attorneys and accountants. The bottom line is that drivers held property that they had absolutely no right to. No matter what the contracts said, didn't say, who paid who, or what the fuc^ing price of rice in China was that day, they should have delivered every single Camaro and Silverado on their schedule on time.

Those who supported the drivers in any way here should be prosecuted as well as the drivers themselves. At minimum, they should all be immediately terminated from their jobs.

I am a small business owner....


I will answer you with a simple question because I don't want this to turn into an argument. Would you go to work if you were surely not going to be paid, furthermore if at work would you do something intentionally if you knew it would result in you being terminated and possibly land you in jail?

Basically what you are asking the drivers to do is commit grand theft auto on a very grand scale. Basic knowledge of how things are here in the US will tell you as worker that unless you are a renegade Camaro enthusiast with a penchant for delivering Camaros at the expense of your job or freedom...you will more than likely stand down as ordered.

That being said, if I were a private owner/ operator with a few contacts at GM I would be looking into doing a old fashioned 1 man 1 truck operation at a very cut rate deal to GM to pick up some side business hauling stranded product helping GM to stop the financial bleeding and save face. It is just my nature but I would be looking into a private short term deal with GM so I could get my foot in the door. Since it would be just me, no unions are involved, overhead is low, and all of the money would be mine to cover fuel costs, maintenance, and then pay the bills. I bet a man could make a hell of a lot more money doing that then working for any company union or not. Not to mention the possibility to build your own shipping company in the process.

[MK69RSSS]

I had to go to the rail yard to get my vert .... But it's home now....pain in the rear

[stand-al0ne]

Originally Posted by MK69RSSS

I had to go to the rail yard to get my vert .... But it's home now....pain in the rear

Was going to the rail yard due to the thread's issue (OP), or was the reason unrelated?

Just curious -


Also...has anyone heard an update? Ive been on the road the last couple days and havent been able to keep up.

Do I still have time to make a
'FREE
CAMARO'

T-shirt?