New lawsuit against Swift by "owner operators"

I am certainly pulling for you. Not only Swift, but there are several more out there that the "contractors" should be classified employees. FedEX is probably the main one. But even looking away from the big ones, do you realize how many drivers there are that are paid on a 1099? I cannot understand how the IRS allows so many to get by with this.

 

Good luck with all that!


www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiLfB3mP2Uw

 

I asked on the web site for information on this case expecting an email etc and a paralegal called my office it was a very interesting chat and I will watch this case with great interest as I hope you when as it will change the industry for the better

one thing you will find as a little new ploy is they set up a separate leasing company etc...

Good Luck

 

Don't you think if this case had any merit OOIDA would have jumped on it long ago ? Are these O/O's or lease operators . There are thousands of O/O's out there happy with the way things are going . All it takes is few crybabies that would never make it under any conditions to come in and ruin things for everybody .

 

Are you saying it's not IEL anymore? Or are you referring to the actual contract between the driver and the linehaul contract and the lease contract when they lose? I don't think Jerry is going to give up IEL without a fight.

The part that really sucks about it is when they (linehaul) terminate you, regardless if you are current on truck payments, they (IEL) put you in automatic default. They are in actuality two separate contracts. I always thought that the same person owning two companies under the same umbrella of a primary corporation was a conflict of interest. I'd be interested in finding out how many drivers were "let go" nearing the end of the lease contract.

I thought I'd read somewhere that Swift buys these trucks they lease to drivers? If that is true, then by the end of the lease the l/o has more or less paid for the truck since I can't see Swift not making any money on this if they buy said truck at cost and pass on the truck payments to the driver.

 

Rick, my hubby was happy working as a lease operator for Swift, that is until they terminated him. We are not "crybabies". He gave the company 100% and then some. He worked for them for years. All you have to do is bring some unwanted, but not unwarranted, scrutiny on the company and they will get rid of you in a heartbeat, which tells me alot about their activities. Their motto is "safety is our number one priority"............bullcrap. It takes a backseat to money honey.

Have you ever been an o/o or l/o for Swift? They classify lease operators as owner operators. If that's the case where is the autonomy of said classification? According to the IRS there is certain criteria that needs to be met in order for you to be classified as an independent contractor, this doesn't fall in line with Swift's lease contracts. You are under their thumb at all points which doesn't make them lease operators or owner operators, it makes them employees. This has been a long time coming.

We aren't involved with this lawsuit, we have our own complaint with OSHA for wrongful termination. But I think that a good house cleaning is in order for many of these large companies who kick around the little guy just because they can. They need to be made accountable for their questionable business practices.

My hubby did very well as an o/o. He worked very hard as an o/o and when he was a company driver. The only thing he did wrong in the company's eye was in doing the right thing and as a result we lost everything we'd invested in.

Not all gripes come from crybabies. Sometimes they are legitimate. We "crybabies" can't all be in the wrong, you know. I admit some are not legitimate and is the fault of the driver, but not in every case.

 

I was referring to crybabies that sign o/o contracts , not l/o . As you found out , an l/o is NOT an o/o . A true o/o is free to take his truck wherever he wants .
But working strictly for one carrier doesn't mean an o/o is n employee . Look at the case of FedEx getting out of classifying FedEx Ground operators as employees by just requiring them to have multiple route contracts .
But you said yourself your husband was happy and doing well as an l/o . How would he feel about someone forcing him to be an employee ?

 

With what Swift tried to do to him he found it very hard to be anyone's employee, much less employed.

Rick look at what the IRS says about what identifies an independent contractor and yes, this verbiage is used in Swift's contract. If Swift could come in and take everything away from him on a whim he was an employee, which means Swift didn't take out the necessary taxes nor paid for half of SS/Medicare. Swift has everything to gain and nothing to lose on a lease contract, hubby lost everything he spent 4 years working toward owning that truck. They just took $100,000 away from him, if this was that easy for them to do then he was more an employee than not, which means Swift had an unfair advantage over the l/o's. I personally would like to see Swift, with their nefarious business practices, taken down a peg or two.