Well here we go with the first timer questions!!!

[pjjjjj]

I actually understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to make the point that, in my view, it shouldn't be looked at like that.
It shouldn't matter that a husband and wife are the workers as opposed to strangers.
If a business, in order to be successful and profitable, requires a truck owner and 2 drivers, the business should be able to support those expenses, or it just isn't a profitable business and it should close its doors. It shouldn't matter who exactly owns the truck or which workers live together.

 

[arrbsthw]

Maybe it shouldn't matter (per your thinking) but it
does matter when splitting the money.

 

[jaminjim]

Pj said:

If a business, in order to be successful and profitable, requires a truck owner and 2 drivers, the business should be able to support those expenses, or it just isn't a profitable business and it should close its doors. It shouldn't matter who exactly owns the truck or which workers live together.

The Biz does not require an owner and two drivers, it requires a truck and a driver

 

[grog111]

Actually, I understand and agree with what you are saying Pjjjjj. And believe it or not, up until 2002, my company used to pay an additional 20% on all team loads. It has dis-heartened me greatly to have watched all the different ways that the profit has been nickled and dimed out of what used to be a profitable if not lucrative business. It's always been kind of interesting to me to see what basically amounts to pay cut after pay cut put forth as more and more people,( competition ), come through not realizing that it hasn't always been this way. The newer people have no idea whats been lost, so they examine the situation for how it now stands and decide that if they still have enough money to satisfy their needs then it's enough. It's harder for me , personally to let it go, knowing what was there before, but when people are willing, and in certain cases even happy, to run for less, well, that's free market economics. What can ya do?

 

[LDB]

You can look at it any way you desire to. The point is that as an owner, receiving 40% of X from a solo operator may not be adequate. Receiving 40% of 1.8X from a team may be plenty to sustain the truck. The monkey then shifts to the operators of whether they are okay making 0.9X as their cut of a team operation or not. It isn't up to the owner to guarantee a certain income unless he/she so chooses. That leads to the debate over turnover frequency etc. that I'll pass on. For this discussion it's whether the truck produces enough revenue for the owner to continue operations and if it does then how much do the operators get.

 

[grog111]

In the same way, I think it is the idea of "volume" that makes the husband and wife team see an advantage. More opportunity for more over-all miles, there-by creating more over-all income. I'm not sure how that would effect the owner, in terms of wear and tear, more exposure to road hazards, possibly more dead head miles, that sort of thing comparatively speaking.

 

[x06col]

Depends. Depends on the high dollar of the equipment. Depends on the willingness of the driver/s to git r done. Depends on if or not the two unrelated drivers have a goal, or they are in it for a job. A lot depends.

An Leo, we still don't care bout the owner.