hi,this is fat boy1 and your right donna..she drives 1 day and makes 2,684 dollars with only one duction for 1.75 cents i think thats great in 5 days she makes 13,975 dollars thats cool for i truck

ps,lets dont talk about landstars deductions.its top secret

Why is it top secret?

The only reason you wont post deductions from landstar is you were hammered for being a slaker and expected the company to pick up the ball you dropped...

Okay, as I read it, the story has now changed from the big charge that Landstar owned a bunch of trucks that they "gave" the agents to run secretly under their name, to admitting what we all knew all along, that some agents own their own trucks in addition to being designated as Landstar agents. Nothing new there, since being their own business owner and booking loads for their trucks is how they came to be with Landstar in the first place. Landstar doesn't require them to shed their prior bsiness before becoming a LAndstar agent, and as long as they keep the two businesses from interfering with each other, then what is going on is perfectly legal. No secret there, and it looks like the initial charges in the post were fictitious, but once that was pointed out as open knowledge, then the issue changed to "secret" deductions, contained in the contract that anyone who leases on to Landstar agrees with and has a copy of. Not sure how something can be secret if you have a copy of it and so does everyone else involved, but giving the benefit of the doubt, then maybe.

As for OOIDA's lawsuit, I had to go back and refresh myself as to what it consisted of, and Turbo was spot on about that. And to clarify this, every item that they are suing over is clearly stated in the contract as a deduction or a cost. What OOIDA is challenging is whether or not those charges are in keeping with the laws that cover the minutae of leasing to a company. At best, if OOIDA wins, then Landstar will make some relatively minor changes to it's contract, probably update the contracts of those working for them, and maybe, at the very most, have some reasonably small refunds to their leasees. This isn't a big lawsuit over a company ripping off drivers for massive amounts of money, but a debate in the legal system over the specific wording of the contract. And in any case, one of the issues that will and has come up is that both parties in the contract agreed to it, so there isn't a breach of contract issue to be litigated, just specific details.

As for me, I never said that I worked for Landstar, despite anyone's tortured misreading of the posts. I went back and reread it and I clearly stated that I have never driven for them, but have read on them extensively on other boards where they are a frequent topic of discussion. In fact, I sent DonnaLou info in a PM that directed her to that conversatioon, because I thought it might have benefit to her since she works the Landstar boards getting loads for her husband/partner.

As for me, I answered a post about Dump trucks in New Jersey on another thread, and I said nothing about buying one, or driving one myself. What I clearly said on there in answer to the question was to look around locally anmd see what specs were in use on dumps and follow that lead, and later posted that an aluminum body would be suitable if you were not hauling demolition debris. And I suggested a plastic liner for the dump body for protection.

What this boils down to, is that someone on here has some real problems with comprehension of what they read. Whether they are reading a contract at the truck dealership, reading a lease agreement, or reading a post on the board, it all seems to lead to the same inescapable conclusion. Despite a proclaimed 32 year career behind the wheel, the business abilitiies needed to adequately run a business seem to be in short supply. If you can;'t thoroughly interpret a contract, or a post, then you need to seek assistance from someone that can assist you You may be the greatest driver in the world, but without the business skills to supplement that, you aren't going to be able to do yourself much good. Things may have been different beginning back in 1974, but the plain cold fact is that this in the year 2006, and the skill set needed to succeed includes much more in the way of business skills than are being displayed.

This is my last response to our new friend, Fatboy1, because it's pretty obvious that just my presence infuriates him, and I don't want to bear the responsbility for him being found collapsed over his keyboard, foam dripping from his open mouth, and his unseeing eyes staring at the last few words he misspelled at the keyboard. I couldn't bear that on my conscience, so I won;t respond to any more of his threads, regardless of any attacks or inane arguments about any company. I wish nothing but the finest for him, and hope he prospers and does well with the .55 cpm, freight that he claims to haul.

There's nothing secret at all in what they deduct. From reading your difficult posts, I have garnered what the problem is. You have some objection to the small percentage that the agents receive, when they book you on a load. That's THEIR compensation for what they do to keep freight moving through the system. And if I were a guessing man, I'd bet that this amount, taken off the top, is what OOIDA is going after them for, because it probably was not defined clearly enough in the lease agreements that are set up through some agents, who actually take on lessors through their operations.

Landstar is not a corrupt company. I repeat, for the record, that OOIDA is not suing Landstar for any issue over fuel surcharges. They couldn't if it were 100% true. There is no legal requirement that ANY company pay fuel surcharges. Landstar could collect a buck a mile for fuel surcharges, and never cough up a cent to the owner of a truck, and no one could do a thing about it. Fuel surcharges are a contractual agreement item ONLY. It can also be handled on a load by load basis. They can be referred to in the lease agreement, and then only to effectively outline how they will be assessed, calculated, and then passed on to the owner. If there is NO reference to fuel surcharges in the lease agreement, then you have no entitlement to them. I personaly would never lease a truck to a company that DIDN'T pay fuel surcharges, and when it was not clearly defined in the lease agreement, but that's another issues altogether.

I will also repeat that the suit that exists in reference, has gone nowhere that I can find. It's in limbo. OOIDA has only been given the go-ahead to proceed with it's complaint, but there is no evidence that there is one iota of truth to the allegations. Until it IS heard in court, where a Judge will rule on the evidence, it is all supposition on YOUR part to use the litigation as any substance to your charges regarding Landstar.

The fact that you keep referring to fuel surcharges having been stolen from lessors to the company, is baseless as I see it. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you've made your point, so leave it as it is and move on...please.

I am also asking you to please respect the opinions of others, and let the readers of the thread make up their own minds. You're attempts to discredit people with information of their own only makes you look silly and childish.

From my personal experience, and from all of my recent research on them, Landstar is not known for abusing lessors. I certainly never had any complaint with them,

Without question, they have gone through several changes over the past decade, but they have managed to keep many people on with them in spite of those changes. Some have literally been with them for decades.

And Burky's right. I think the OOIDA litigation stems more from simple paperwork errors, rather than there actually being an intent to cheat people.

I DID see (once) some freight listed from LA to Boston (?) that was paying $.55cpm. I was setting in the "Party Row" at Ontario East with about 15 other Landstar trucks. I called the VP in charge of Landstar Express America and posted a complaint about the Agent who had it listed. It was removed from the board with-in 15 minutes, and you can bet it wasn't because someone put that load on their truck. My wife and I did (basically) well with Landstar and averaged over 1.35 per mile for ALL MILES in 1999-2000-2001, but were eventually forced to sell our equipment because we had got "behind-the-8-Ball" in 1997 [Edited by TurboTrucker]. I did go to work for another Landstar BCO after that, and worked for him for three years, until April 2005.

If you are paying THEM $137 (or so) to pull THEIR trailer, why don't YOU put that money to BETTER use and BUY your own? Payments on a GOOD USED trailer arent much more than that, you SAVE the other week(s) payments PLUS you increase your revenue by at least 14%.
Makes "business sense" to me....

If he was getting .55 cpm as he said he was, the 14% increase would have jumped him up to about 62.7 cents per mile. Now we're talking some money....

Fatboy, for real, your posts are very hard to understand. One giant run on sentence. I have heard very good things about Landstar so far. Your lawsuit info is a first. I'm glad Turbo has helped to define exactly what OOIDA is suing for.

He won't answewr you. Notice underneath his name where it says "Banned".