Forced Dispatch

[LDB]

The time has come for forced dispatch. Too many loads are not being covered. Reasons may include pay too low meaning not enough profit in the load, unfavorable location even though it previously may have been a good location, and other reasons. Bottom line, the business, aka O/O, isn't going to make enough profit to cover the load. Now, that would have been fine in time gone by but now it is not. We know this because Walgreen's is being vilified, along with other businesses, for not observing their own forced dispatch. They have the audacity to decide to pass when the profit is too low or the location is undesirable. So, in the spirit of consistency, it's time for at least some people to go on forced dispatch so their actions match their words toward businesses.

 

[cheri1122]

Walgreen's is being vilified because [in your terms] they accepted a load, then decided the profit/location wasn't good enough. The time to make that determination is before building a store and hiring staff - er, accepting a load.
We all make poor decisions sometimes, but 200 wrong decisions deserves vilification, IMO.

 

[Turtle]

Well, from the proper analogous perspective, building a store isn't accepting a load, it's buying a truck. Forced dispatch is keeping it open and running for every customer sale.

 

[LDB]

There are various analogies that could be made. Your carrier could tell you that from now on you'll get one load a week and it will pay you van rate. Now obviously you should never be allowed to change carriers. You should just have to suck it up and run for van rate once a week. Or create your own. The real point is an anti-business bias that won't allow any other thoughts and no logic.

 

[cheri1122]

The bias isn't anti business, it's anti the assumption that business deserves deference, no matter how their decisions impact others. There are plenty of good businesses, but the ones that value profit above all else, [esp short term], aren't an asset to the community, and don't deserve to be rewarded for their selfishness, via tax breaks that leave the community short of the funds required to supply services to all the citizens. When they make bad decisions, they don't deserve to avoid criticism for the harm [and hardship] those decisions cause.
A certain amount of selfishness is necessary for survival, but too much, whether business, government, or individuals is harmful to a society that works for everyone.

 

[aristotle]

Certainly, Walgreen wishes every single one of their retail stores thrived at all times under all conditions. In reality, business doesn't work that way. Situations change. Risk is at the heart of entrepreneurship and business. Business is a cold, hard @##$$ best operated free of emotion. There's an old adage about lancing a boil to save the arm.

 

[xiggi]

Even when companies get tax breaks they still pay other taxes. Often tax breaks are focused such as property tax etc. Many of the people they employ pay taxes. They might not be paying otherwise. Business is about profit and those that believe it's about serving others are fools. Companies cannot be good citizens of the community without first turning profits that allow them to do so.

 

[davekc]

The bias isn't anti business, it's anti the assumption that business deserves deference, no matter how their decisions impact others. There are plenty of good businesses, but the ones that value profit above all else, [esp short term], aren't an asset to the community, and don't deserve to be rewarded for their selfishness, via tax breaks that leave the community short of the funds required to supply services to all the citizens. When they make bad decisions, they don't deserve to avoid criticism for the harm [and hardship] those decisions cause.
A certain amount of selfishness is necessary for survival, but too much, whether business, government, or individuals is harmful to a society that works for everyone.

I would agree with your premise but I don't think it is reflective of most businesses.