Negotiating out of driver facing cameras

Thats kinda my point

 

You did great in getting your raise. You made points. Some drivers think they supposed to be at the top without ever proving their worth. You forced them to look at what you had to offer and I can appreciate that.

 

You've got that completely backwards. The company wants to prove that you, as their employee, are not liable so that they in turn are not liable.

 

Trucking companies have never had a problem hiring and keeping quality truck drivers. Anyone who operates quality equipment and offers quality compensation has never had trucks against the fence for lack of a driver. Ever.

 

I doubt it’s negotiable, but I would let them know why you are not accepting a job, I doubt they will realize it is their policy’s and not “dRiVeR sHoRtAgE” as to why they won’t get guys but atleast you can do your part.

just a first red flag of micromanagement IMO, and they absolutely can watch you live on them if they want

 

I've talked with more than one company as an interview type setting. This includes one of our company lawyers. I could not find one that says they get an insurance break for cameras. All said no. I have not seen anyone on here offer proof that their company got a lower insurance rate for cameras. Fike this in the lunch counter file. Until I see it on paper I will consider insurance breaks for cameras a false narrative. Just my opinion.

 

No you’re completely wrong. There is zero upside whatsoever for the driver with a driver facing camera. An outward facing camera of course there is. The inward facing camera is there for a plethora of reasons and none of which are to the advantage of the driver. You don’t have to prove you werent doing something distracting, when there’s an Incedent. The power that be, have to, Without a camera, they usually can’t. With the camera, they’ll come up with something. Even if it was 4 miles up the road from where the incident happened. And then you’ll be found a percentage of the blame. Nothing good comes from driver facing cameras for the driver. Nothing ever. Many companies use them to fire drivers. If they have a driver that they’re not agreeing with or they deem is causing them trouble, they’ll just watch them on the camera until they do something wrong and then call them in and say we have it on film goodbye. Probably something every driver in their fleet does. But if they want you, they got you on camera.

 

OK, you just keep on thinking whatever you want to think. I've seen the evidence to the contrary.

 

ICBC and MPI offer 10-15% discount on their policies.
Both are government ran insurance agencies.
British Columbia and Manitoba.
It's on a voluntary basis, so far.
Unconstitutional to be implemented after a driver took it to SC and asked for a ruling.
The trial happened long ago in Quebec. This may or may not create a judicial precedent.
Link attached:
Sysco Quebec ordered to remove driver-facing cameras - Truck News

 

The driver who was sitting at a red light And took his glasses off for a second to clean them with this T-shirt. The car slammed into the back of him. The driver of that car was killed. The cameras reviewed and it would determine that since he was on the road even though he was at a red light and not moving and use that opportunity to clean his glasses. Probably like millions of truck drivers do, he was operating a commercial vehicle without wearing his prescription eyewear. He got sued. Would that have happened to this driver if there was no driver facing camera? They don’t benefit the driver. In any capacity