UPS to invest in new buildings, new trucks ... Hire more drivers???

F

Frankie's Friend

Guest
if the hubs didn’t roll volume because they’re over capacity, the drivers would be able to handle most of the volume

we are over hiring this year FYI, though i doubt many will stay till the end of the year
probably because thats the trend? hire em and make them load 4 or 5 cars at $11 an hr and thats a given
 
F

Frankie's Friend

Guest
They bought the building right next to us, in NJ, months ago. Still has old sign on it. We were able to park there during peak which was still a far as hell walk lol. Who knows what the plans are for that building. I’d assume that was apart of this tax reform.
Its probanly going to be the new prison that the company will lease to the state if they put in a work co op so they dont have to rehire so many part timers.
 
If everyone agreed to a decrease in pay, the trucks would probably go out with less boxes in back. Lol.
3o7aD3tZ3bF4jjzWRa.gif
 

DOK

Well-Known Member
So after being “taken by surprise “ by this years Christmas volume our CEO thinks the answer is to invest in more buildings, automation etc. How about more hire more drivers for next and take the helper cell phones and shove them up your...
if the hubs didn’t roll volume because they’re over capacity, the drivers would be able to handle most of the volume

we are over hiring this year FYI, though i doubt many will stay till the end of the year

Good to know on the hubs rolling the volume, I can see how that would be a problem on the delivery end. I just hope someone figures out this 4-5 week volume surge.
 

saintrick

Well-Known Member
Uh, that might be a valid point if his state didn't pay twice as much in Federal taxes as they receive back from the government. One of the least dependent of states. The low tax states are the real burdens .

So the low tax states should raise state tax so they can pay even less on federal?
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
So help me.

Low tax states are the real burdens. How do we fix that?
I was responding to someone who was suggesting that Jersey shouldn't get the SALT deduction because it's unfair to states that don't have high taxes, when in fact it's quite the opposite.... Jersey pays more than their fair share, and low tax states pay less than their fair share. It's just math.

I'd prefer it not be fixed, I have no problem with my low taxes at the expense of others. But I don't need to pretend it's fair. Republicans got rid of it because they needed to fund corporate tax cuts somehow and they don't care about states that vote blue. It's just typical politics that screws over the little guy. Business as usual.
 

saintrick

Well-Known Member
Thanks! I get it now.

New Jersey family makes 100000 and with salt deduction of 20000 pays tax on 80000 @ 10% so 8000
Low state family makes 100000 and takes the 12700 standard deduction pays on 87300@ 10% so 8730
 
Top