more info on bolt
- Thread starter underdog777
- Start date
- Status
Hedgehog said
You'll notice no one posted after this...*LOL*
You'll notice no one posted after this...*LOL*
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Main Entry: se·man·tic
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tik\
Variant(s): also se·man·ti·cal \-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek sēmantikos significant, from sēmainein to signify, mean, from sēma sign, token
Date: 1894
1 : of or relating to meaning in language
2 : of or relating to semantics
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tik\
Variant(s): also se·man·ti·cal \-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek sēmantikos significant, from sēmainein to signify, mean, from sēma sign, token
Date: 1894
1 : of or relating to meaning in language
2 : of or relating to semantics
You'll find it in most any complete dictionary that lists variants of root words, and it simply means two or more words or phrases that mean essentially the same thing. But, if you really want to understand semantical in all of its forms an philosophical permutations, you will have to read
Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface
by Jay David Atlas.
The book focuses on the philosophy of language that deals with the connection between a theory of literal meaning and that of pragmatics, the distinction between the metaphorical and the literal, the formal semantics of natural language an the significant of conversational implicature with relation to inferences.
For example, when one says, "Can you pass the salt?" it is literally a request for information about one's ability to pass salt. Can you pass it, yes or no? But the implicature, that is to say the speaker's method of implying, suggesting or conveying a distinct meaning, as well as the natural inference, would be to mean that it is simply a request for salt.
Another example is at the Canadian border when a Canadian border guard asked me, "Do you have your birth certificate with you?" Her conversational implicature failed to fully imply what she meant to convey, an instead was a simple yes/no request as to whether or not I had it. Thus, my answer was a simple, "Yes." She then repeated her question, word for word, and I then repeated my answer, only this time with the addition of a redundant confirmation with the affirmative nod of the head.
She further complicated failed conversational implicature with her next question, "Can I see it?" which is conversational semantics for, "Am I able to see it?" another yes/no question which requires me to know the condition of her eyesight in order to formulate an adequate answer.However I did make that inference to mean, "Would you please hand it to me so that I may closely inspect it?" So, I handed it to her an she seemed annoyed and pleased at the same time.
So you can see that you have to be careful about conversational implicature. You want to make sure you convey the meaning properly. Like, with, "Some dogs are mammals," the speaker conveys by implicature that not all dogs are mammals, which is just silly. By the same token, "Some van drivers are morons," implies that not all van rivers are morons, which is equally just a silly.
But back to semantical and POD money, since the overwhelming majority of loads that get picked up do actually get delivered, paying out POD money after the pickup or after the delivery ends up meaning the same thing, and differentiating between one or the other becomes an exercise in (meaningless) semantics. At what point between pickup and delivery the POD money is paid becomes semantical.
One could also argue that when the POD money gets paid out becomes a "Moo Point". You know, like, a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moooooo.
Of course, "Moo Point" and "Moot Point" are mere semantics, they mean the same thing. It's just that one has a little more eccentric flavor than the other. "Moot Points", on the other hand, are rare and valuable, depending on the context and the conversational implicature. It largely depends on whether they are made or awarded.
Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface
by Jay David Atlas.
The book focuses on the philosophy of language that deals with the connection between a theory of literal meaning and that of pragmatics, the distinction between the metaphorical and the literal, the formal semantics of natural language an the significant of conversational implicature with relation to inferences.
For example, when one says, "Can you pass the salt?" it is literally a request for information about one's ability to pass salt. Can you pass it, yes or no? But the implicature, that is to say the speaker's method of implying, suggesting or conveying a distinct meaning, as well as the natural inference, would be to mean that it is simply a request for salt.
Another example is at the Canadian border when a Canadian border guard asked me, "Do you have your birth certificate with you?" Her conversational implicature failed to fully imply what she meant to convey, an instead was a simple yes/no request as to whether or not I had it. Thus, my answer was a simple, "Yes." She then repeated her question, word for word, and I then repeated my answer, only this time with the addition of a redundant confirmation with the affirmative nod of the head.
She further complicated failed conversational implicature with her next question, "Can I see it?" which is conversational semantics for, "Am I able to see it?" another yes/no question which requires me to know the condition of her eyesight in order to formulate an adequate answer.However I did make that inference to mean, "Would you please hand it to me so that I may closely inspect it?" So, I handed it to her an she seemed annoyed and pleased at the same time.
So you can see that you have to be careful about conversational implicature. You want to make sure you convey the meaning properly. Like, with, "Some dogs are mammals," the speaker conveys by implicature that not all dogs are mammals, which is just silly. By the same token, "Some van drivers are morons," implies that not all van rivers are morons, which is equally just a silly.
But back to semantical and POD money, since the overwhelming majority of loads that get picked up do actually get delivered, paying out POD money after the pickup or after the delivery ends up meaning the same thing, and differentiating between one or the other becomes an exercise in (meaningless) semantics. At what point between pickup and delivery the POD money is paid becomes semantical.
One could also argue that when the POD money gets paid out becomes a "Moo Point". You know, like, a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moooooo.
Of course, "Moo Point" and "Moot Point" are mere semantics, they mean the same thing. It's just that one has a little more eccentric flavor than the other. "Moot Points", on the other hand, are rare and valuable, depending on the context and the conversational implicature. It largely depends on whether they are made or awarded.
aileron
Expert Expediter
There was an older border guard on this side of the border that made it a priority to be excessively mean. He would ask if you had a passport. Then of course, you respond in an affirmative way and hand the guy the passport. He then would use the most sour voice you can imagine informing you that he did not ask to see it. Lesson learned. Next time coming in happens to be at the same guard. When he asks if you have the passport, having learned the lesson, you only said yes. Then, using the same nasty voice he asks why you don't show it to him if you have it. Some people just delight in being nasty.
Anyway, back on topic, I drove a cargo van for some years and I never used Comdata. Even after hurricane Katrina when fuel was close to $5 I did not need it. The discount Comdata offers, and now T-Chek, is not worth it in a cargo van, especially when you factor in the fee, and if you use Flying J for showers, not much discount there. So, it didn't affect me if my company charged 15, 25, or even 50% on advances, I didn't use it. Now I drive a tractor and I use advance just for the discounts that we get at TA. Well worth it, since my company offers it for free, well it only costs 50 cents when you use it, nothing to load money on the card.
That being said, I really don't like a company that takes advantage of those less fortunate than me, those that really need these advances. I feel the same about those title pawns and cash advance places. Have you noticed that these kind of places are always located in the poorer parts of the town? So, I wish some companies would charge more reasonable fees for these advances, or stop offering them altogether.
Anyway, back on topic, I drove a cargo van for some years and I never used Comdata. Even after hurricane Katrina when fuel was close to $5 I did not need it. The discount Comdata offers, and now T-Chek, is not worth it in a cargo van, especially when you factor in the fee, and if you use Flying J for showers, not much discount there. So, it didn't affect me if my company charged 15, 25, or even 50% on advances, I didn't use it. Now I drive a tractor and I use advance just for the discounts that we get at TA. Well worth it, since my company offers it for free, well it only costs 50 cents when you use it, nothing to load money on the card.
That being said, I really don't like a company that takes advantage of those less fortunate than me, those that really need these advances. I feel the same about those title pawns and cash advance places. Have you noticed that these kind of places are always located in the poorer parts of the town? So, I wish some companies would charge more reasonable fees for these advances, or stop offering them altogether.
Last edited:
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Charles wrote:
exactly...every O/O or a driver that gets into a O/O unit is "independent business person", they are NOT employees....if as a business person you can't set your OWN business up to succeed with your own funds, why should any carrier be expected to fund you???
I don't care want rate a carrier wants to charge for a advance, you know what that rate is before you take it, it is in your contract....no one holds a gun to your head and makes anyone take the money....and where is it written what is too much??? I would think that is a personal decision, simular to "personal responcibility.....like being responciable enough to fund your OWN business properly from the start......
I'd be willing to bet, those that NEED fuel advances to run feight, don't have a business plan.......
exactly...every O/O or a driver that gets into a O/O unit is "independent business person", they are NOT employees....if as a business person you can't set your OWN business up to succeed with your own funds, why should any carrier be expected to fund you???
I don't care want rate a carrier wants to charge for a advance, you know what that rate is before you take it, it is in your contract....no one holds a gun to your head and makes anyone take the money....and where is it written what is too much??? I would think that is a personal decision, simular to "personal responcibility.....like being responciable enough to fund your OWN business properly from the start......
I'd be willing to bet, those that NEED fuel advances to run feight, don't have a business plan.......
aileron
Expert Expediter
Chef,
You are right. Most of those that were living off of the advances that I talked to are gone now. They could not survive the slowdown this year.
Well, of course you're right, but do keep in mind that POD money is your money to begin with. Wanting to have access to it as soon as possible is not akin to some kind of business failure.
If you think about it a little bit, look at it from another perspective, some carriers hold on to your money for as long as they can, and use it to make money, and do so without paying you any interest, and, they've got their contractors thinking this is not only a great idea, but gleefully acquiescing to, and even defending, the practice. That's pretty funny.
I don't need my POD money, either. But I have no twisted qualms about getting access to it as soon as possible and then putting it to work for me.
Business plan or no, most I would think, would almost have to be drivers driving for fleet owners, where the cash flow potential just sux to begin with, and living settlement-to-settlement, often even POD-to-POD, becomes the norm. I can't imagine an owner/operator driving their own van having any kind of routine need for POD money. They would certainly have a use for it, but not necessarily much of a need for it.
This is a good point and brings to mind the fact that it's your right and obligation as a business owner to maximize your cash flow. The business plan you have in place or the condition of your reserves shouldn't matter to the carrier. Just as some carriers want to hold your first paycheck for three weeks and use your money interest free to enhance their finances (claiming that it's their "policy" as ample justification), you can just as easily say it's your "policy" to get your POD or advance money as soon as possible or when the freight is on your truck. If it's fair for the carriers to charge a fee for these advances, it should conversely be reasonable and logical for them to pay interest or fees to drivers on escrow funds or delayed payments. In the case of company drivers and company owned trucks, the fuel expenses are paid and absorbed by the company during the course of the shipment - not two weeks after the freight is delivered. Of course it's the driver's obligation to deliver the cargo on time, and if he fails to do this the penalty should come out of his escrow or the remainder of the settlement for that shipment.
I admit that once in a while I forget however I normally load my card with the allowable amount on each run. I normally had enough on my card at any given time to fill both fuel tanks completely from bone dry to brimming full about 3 times over as usually the amount of the load was more than the fuel burned to do the load. My position is it's my money and when the card load was after POD I had fully earned it. With card load while in transit I haven't fully earned it although often I remember it after sending my arrived at delivery message so in those cases I have. Either way, I get my money at the first opportunity. Even if I don't move it to an interest bearing account it is at least still in my possession and control.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Yes the POD is the O/O's money and he should have access to it asap, after he has fulfilled his part and deliveredthe freight...but from my point, its not mine until i have fulfilled that part and delivered the freight, not when it is loaded on my truck. Even though the freight is my responsibility and is covered by my insurance, my obligation is to deliver it, and that is when i have earned my money...until it is at the consignees dock and off my truck, i am not due a dime as far as i am concerned. as far as the carrier holding it, I guess it gets down to what you agree to when you sign the contract...it is all spelled out for you before you sign with any company. Other then that, i can only hope that i never get into the position of taking an advance for gas for a run....when that happens, i'll be looking for something else to do.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Hey Corf ..... mebbe youse guys just been on that POD teat too long ....
I guess we are not a normal business as most have to wait 60 - 90 days to get paid for items billed...like our carriers and nearly every other business....
We are darned lucky to get paid within 2 -3 weeks! We are no different than any other business out there..How the heck do yoy think we should be any different or be treated any different?
Most companies have a line of credit to use if their cash flow gets low and pay interest for using it...
We are a business and it is a user pay system.
We are darned lucky to get paid within 2 -3 weeks! We are no different than any other business out there..How the heck do yoy think we should be any different or be treated any different?
Most companies have a line of credit to use if their cash flow gets low and pay interest for using it...
We are a business and it is a user pay system.
this has all gotten fairly interesting, but what is forgotten is, as has been stated your contract states what will be done and how. now with that out of the way, lets approach this in a different way. the load advance or fuel card program, which no one has mentioned, have long been a courtesy that the industry has provided. i stress long been cause 10 yrs ago almost every co. offered one of these. it has just been in the recent that co. started charging for advances. fuel cards are different. although they are a form of an advance in a round about way. i have used both, but advances were always for the amt of fuel only. i simply treated it like a fuel card. while i do not believe the carrier owes any of us this courtesy, i do believe it is wrong to charge an exorbanent amt. for an advance. comments made on lining pockets are absolutley correct. when tstate did this we ran the numbers and the amt they were charging @ 5% if only half the fleet were using advances way over compensated for the interest or time spent providing this service. the remainder going where? it is also bad retention when you have a long time contractor who has to be hit for this after years of no charge. { thats contractor appreciation } this all boils dow to what is rite and what is not. if co. need to charge a fee to do this fine, make it reasonable and disclose to all parties how they came to this amount and provide accurate and believable proof to back it up. if they need to cover their expense, great, but they dont need to profit. most people are reasonable when provided with info they can see and charges that are appropriate. maybe instead of charging a rediculous amt. they should lower the advance amt to a percentage that they are sure would cover fuel for the run, that way reducing the line of credit they must keep. cause it does sound like they dont have access to the credit to match the amt they are being ask to advance and using the fee to make up the rest.
- Status