Chizek Transport, Inc. - Newton, Wi.

Discussion in 'Report A BAD Trucking Company Here' started by DigiTrucker, Jun 9, 2006.

  1. Pur48Ted

    Pur48Ted Road Train Member

    3,617
    5,979
    Jun 14, 2006
    Grand Rapids, MI
    0
    FROM DOL WHD: Fact Sheet #19: The Motor Carrier Exemption Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

    (which seems to ONLY apply to OVERTIME pay)

    (There is MUCH more information HERE: trucking exempt from FLSA - Google Search)

    Fact Sheet #19: The Motor Carrier Exemption Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
    Printer Friendly Page
    Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA is an exemption from overtime. The provisions of Section 7 (overtime) do not apply with respect to any employee to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of Section 204 of The Motor Carrier Act of 1935.
    Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from the overtime pay provisions, but not from the minimum wage (Section 6) requirements. This exemption has been interpreted as applying to any driver, driver's helper, loader or mechanic employed by a carrier and whose duties affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on public highways of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Requirements

    The Section 13(b)(1) overtime exemption applies to those employees for whom the Department of Transportation claims jurisdiction and if the employer is:
    1) a private carrier and hauls property or;
    2) a common or contract carrier and hauls property or passengers and additionally if;
    a) the employee's duties (consisting wholly or in part) affect the safety of operation of a motor vehicle and;
    b) the employee's travel is in interstate commerce (across State lines) or the employee handles trips which connect with an intrastate terminal (rail, air, water, or land) to continue an interstate journey of goods that have not come to rest at a final destination.
    The exemption will apply to those employees called upon in the ordinary course of work to perform, either regularly or from time to time, safety-affecting activities. The employee comes within the exemption in all workweeks when he\she is employed in such work. This general rule assumes that the activities involved in the continuing duties of the job in all workweeks will include activities that affect safety of operation of motor vehicles. Where this is the case, the exemption will be applicable regardless of the proportion of "safety affecting activities" performed in a particular workweek.
    On the other hand, where continuing duties of the employee's job have no substantial direct effect on such "safety of operation", or where such safety affecting activities are so trivial, casual, and insignificant as to be de minimis, the exemption will not apply in any workweek so long as there is no change in the duties.
    Where safety affecting employees have not made an actual interstate trip, they may still be subject to DOT's jurisdiction if:
    1) the employer is shown to have an involvement in interstate commerce and;
    2) it can be established that the employee could have, in the regular course of employment, been reasonably expected to make an interstate journey or could have worked on the motor vehicle in such a way to be safety affecting.
    Satisfactory evidence of the above could take the form of statements from the employees, or documentation from the employer, such as employee agreements. Where such evidence is developed with regard to an employee, the DOT will assert jurisdiction over that employee for a four (4) month period beginning with the date he\she could have been called upon to, or actually did, engage in the carrier's interstate activities. Thus, such employee(s) would be exempt under Section 13(b)(1) for the same four-month period, notwithstanding references to the contrary in Regulations, 29 CFR 782.2.
    The overtime pay exemption does not apply to employees of non-carriers such as commercial garages, firms engaged in the business of maintaining and repairing motor vehicles owned and operated by carriers, or firms engaged in the leasing and renting of motor vehicles to carriers.
    Typical Problems

    A carrier may improperly apply the Section 13(b)(1) overtime exemption to employees of the company who are not engaged in "safety affecting activities", such as dispatchers, office personnel, those who unload vehicles or those who load but are not responsible for the proper loading of the vehicle. Only drivers, driver's helpers, loaders who are responsible for proper loading, and mechanics working directly on motor vehicles that are to be used in transportation of passengers or property in interstate commerce, can be exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA under Section 13(b)(1).
    Where to Obtain Additional Information

    This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations.
    For additional information, visit our Wage-Hour website: http://www.wagehour.dol.gov and/or call our Wage-Hour toll-free information and helpline, available 8am to 5pm in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).
     
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. TurboTrucker

    TurboTrucker Road Train Member

    861
    276
    Feb 23, 2005
    Rossville, Georgia
    0
    I guess this is a form of correcting my mistake. I used the word "employees", rather than to specify that it is "Drivers" that are exempt. I sometimes assume that most people are aware that I am referring to drivers, but as we all know...specifics are important.

    Thanks for the correction.
     
  4. incognito

    incognito Bobtail Member

    5
    4
    Mar 6, 2007
    0
    You do not want to work for this company!.

    They will try to cheat you out of a Dime if they can, Ever sense Mike Chizek took over control he has slowly driven this company into the ground. I do beleave Chizek Transport had a chance to be a premiere outfit but now I do not think they will ever have a good name among Drivers.

    I did drive for Chizek, here are some of the problems with this company,

    .1 ) They pay SHORTEST possible miles
    .2 ) If a customer does not pay legal miles, then neither will Chizek.
    .3 ) Chizek has no problem NOT paying promised bonuses even if you Qualified,
    Mike assumes you are stupid and do not know how to contact the Wisconsin Labor Dept.
    .4 ) They promise raises that never seem to happen when they say they will.
    .5 ) If you have truck Problems and need to bring the truck to the yard, Mike will not pay you the miles from wherever you are back to the yard.
    .6 ) Mike expects you to drive out of route to fuel up at the yard but will not paid you the out of route miles to do this. (Mike thinks that a .03 cent per gal if you get 1000 gals or more by the end of the month will more than compensate for the OOR, Do the math... Driver looses...

    There are more, But I just can't list them all...

    Biggest Problem With Chizek Transport......
    Mike Chizek.

    Incognito
     
    jeff18 Thanks this.
  5. bjohn920

    bjohn920 Light Load Member

    125
    25
    Mar 1, 2006
    Wisconsin
    0
    Thanks for the post. I live in the area and looking at the local companies. I will stay away from this one.
     
  6. DigiTrucker

    DigiTrucker Light Load Member

    55
    40
    May 3, 2006
    West-By-God-Virginia
    0
    Amazing. Many points made and every one valid and very current. I'll defer to a previous post of mine regarding this company on at least one attempted incident with Chizek. But let's take this list a little further:

    * Drivers were presented with a pending pay raise said to be effective by the end of January 2007 and paying miles retroactively to the first of the year. The date was subsequently changed and then changed again and is currently slated to go effective "the first of March." This "pay raise," however, has been preceeded by a change in the PC Miler software effective in January which effectively reduced mileages on many (if not all) paid miles on loads resulting in a pay raise for those drivers slated to see a $0.04 / mile increase of actually only around $0.008 / mile (these calculations have been made based on the most common loads Chizek drivers haul). Those drivers who were slated to receive only a $0.01/mile increase will actually realize a decrease in pay due to the decrease in milages on those common runs. Specifically it's amazing that only 16 miles removed from the dispatch on one of the most common runs resulted in this set of numbers.

    * Some drivers were specifically told if they did not attend at least one of the driver meetings in January 2007, they would NOT receive any raise. Of course the number of meetings made available were increased from the 3 scheduled during January to something like 5 or 6 with 2-3 of those being impromptu meetings arranged on an ad hoc basis.

    * This company actually charges $25 per advance for any cash advance of $50. Admittedly drivers must dilligently prove they are using the money for company expenses to avoid being charged, however in my years of trucking I've never encountered such a confiscatory charge. $1, $2, $3 I could easily say is justifiable, but such a fee seems fairly close to something like loan sharking.

    * Dispatchers in this company will readily let drivers know that driving positions are available simply because dispatchers must have drivers. It is not uncommon for dispatch to treat drivers with much less than normal respect. It's not so far fetched to hear of dispatchers telling drivers they are worthless and even going so far as blaming drivers for "loss of accounts" on loads where the driver has been handed a load which dispatch has let go into critical for delivery--even going so far as to commit slander (used here in specific legal context due to their dispatchers mentioning those drivers blamed in such situations precisely by name to other drivers within the company--or blatantly lying to brokers when drivers are not able to legally perform as dispatch has promised). It is also quite common for some dispatch personnel to directly tell drivers they are either lazy or worthless.

    * At least one dispatcher in the company has directly ordered a driver to operate outside the hours of service to pick up a load and to log illegally to pick up a load the dispatcher knew before hand he did not have sufficient hours to perform. This dispatcher, upon being called on the situation, was not terminated; rather the individual continued right along in their new promotion in dispatch and is still actively employed with Chizek as of this post. Additionally, this dispatcher forwarded those orders to operate illegally via the company's QualComm gear.

    Perhaps I should stop at this point before I run longer than most people care to read...
     
  7. wallbanger

    wallbanger "Enemy of showers everywhere"

    Not at all, this beyond ridiculous. A company that treats their employees like this has no business being in ANY kind of business.
     
  8. bjohn920

    bjohn920 Light Load Member

    125
    25
    Mar 1, 2006
    Wisconsin
    0
    Chizek has been around a long time. I just don't understand how a trucking company can get away with treating their drivers like that.
     
  9. incognito

    incognito Bobtail Member

    5
    4
    Mar 6, 2007
    0

    Thanks DigiTrucker:

    You said a Mouth full and I agree with all of your points,
    If you are due one of the Promised Bonuses from this Chizek i.e. Yearly Retention Bonus, I strongly urge you to file a claim with the Wisconsin Labor Dept. (Equal Rights Div).
     
  10. MACK E-6

    MACK E-6 Moderator Staff Member

    46,047
    201,692
    Sep 19, 2005
    Baltimore, MD
    0
    This idiotic dispatcher actually sent orders to run illegal over the qualcom? That's a good one. That will land them in hot water with the law eventually, and that dispatcher? That will be the day he gets his walking papers.
     
  11. DigiTrucker

    DigiTrucker Light Load Member

    55
    40
    May 3, 2006
    West-By-God-Virginia
    0
    Incognito:

    As regards filing claims with Wisconsin Workforce Development, certain individuals in the office are quite aware that I am in the process of filing such a claim for money being taken from my pay with neither properly signed authorization nor a court awarded judgement. Shameful to have to work this way--and I tell you it won't be much longer before I find other employment.

    Something comical which happened the day I spoke with a representative of the WI Labor Board: I explained the situation I have with them over this money and when I told the guy, quite reluctantly, for whom I worked, his response was, "Oh, those guys..." It quite left me guessing that the good folks in Madison's state house are VERY familiar with Chizek's shinanigans.
     
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.