Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation Forced labor Minimum wageThis lawsuit is brought

That must be why all those ProStars are returned to Idealease (International's own leasing subsidiary) when the lease is up. Also must be why, when I purchase this truck outright, I will be purchasing it from Idealease/International, not from IEL or Swift.

Now, I completely understand.

Things have changed a bit since you had your truck here. 85% of Swift's fleet are leased from whichever leasing subsidiary the manufacturer owns or uses. This is one more reason why Swift is clamping down so hard on people who trash the trucks. It's cheaper to lease in bulk than it is to sell and then ship 3,000 trucks every year. A small percentage of trucks are still dealt with in that manner. But not in the numbers you think they are.

 

Are you using a general "you"? Who said the contract wasn't read? One can read something and believe it to mean something different. These contracts are written in legalese, so having the ability to take it to a lawyer would be advantageous for sure, but it hasn't always been the case, if, in fact, they are able to do that presently.

I imagine it would be in their best interest to write the contract that way. However, there's also the lease contract besides the line haul contract. Would you expect the dealership you leased your car from to let the company you are contracted to work for, to tell the dealership that the company you were contracted to, has severed the contract, thereby putting you in default with the dealership and then expect the dealership to take your car from you? Does that make any sense?

Charges, fees and requirements are laid out in the contract, it's those things that aren't laid out in the contract is what you have to be wary of.

I agree, in a perfect world they would be, but there's a plethora of contract law attorneys who would adamantly disagree with your sentiment. They're written that way for a reason, it's called job security.

There's too many variables in this type of scenario to discuss at this time, suffice it to say that not all blame of terminated leases can be laid at the foot of the driver, it's not all due to the driver's failure of trying to make a success of his business. If that L/O had complete autonomy in his "business", and failed, yeah, no one to blame but him/herself, but that's not always the case. One way Swift gets you in the door to the lease office is by telling you that leasing their truck, you have entered into a "business partnership" with them, this phrase is worded in all their advertisements. What kind of "business partnership" is it if they can terminate your contracts on a whim? It also states in the contract that your employment is "at will"? So are you an employee? Or are you a "business partner"? A business partner has an investment in the business, not just his time and work, but his money also.

I agree.

I agree, although I don't kid myself thinking their reasons for signing lease drivers on is altruistic.

Nope.

Wrong again.

What, you mean they don't want a down payment, security deposit, Qualcomm (mandatory with Swift) paid for on your dime, not to mention the rent you pay for using it? What about your insurances, fuel, lease payments and maintenance? What about all the other little incidentals that cost the L/O money?

See above.

The L/O's success is many times only as successful as the people who hold sway over them as an "IC". Of course it's attractive. Who doesn't dream of being their own boss? As far as finding people, it works the same way if you were a company driver, they can always find someone to fill your shoes.

If Swift is the reason for your failure that blame can be equally dispersed.

They certainly don't. That's listed in the contract. However, if the driver has done everything according to the stipulations in the contracts and is still terminated, how is that the driver's fault?

That contract is signed by two parties, so you mean the "ones" signing the lease/line haul contracts.

Where does it say anyone failed to pay their taxes? You assume way too much. Please read the briefs. I still haven't found in any legal papers filed as to why their contracts were terminated. One party put $20,000 down payment on his truck, so I could reasonably assume if he had taxes to pay, he paid them. I feel for him because he lost his $20,000 and since Swift put a negative on his DAC, he probably couldn't find any gainful employment. So they didn't just terminate this driver's contracts, they made it almost impossible for him to find another job in the this industry.

 

I can't imagine anyone who would put $20,000 down on a leased truck. He could have gotten a truck financed from most any lender with that much down. He could also have paid cash for a good used truck and would not have to worry about making payments.

My guess is that there is more to the story than he mentioned. I recall something being mentioned that led me to believe that one thing they were after was to have Swift reimburse them for lost wages and that would require Swift to pay their taxes along with interest and penalties.

 

G/Man, I do agree with you about reading and understanding the contract. What the lawyers in this case are trying to prove, however, is that Swift is breaking the law. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Whether Swift is breaking the law or not, I really don't know, because I don't know all the details about the lease and what was done to these former ic'ers, and I've never studied labor and contract law or IRS code relating to this case. My guess is that most of you who dismiss this suit as "frivolous" haven't either.

Everyone keeps saying that it's all the drivers fault because they signed the contracts and should be held accountable for their actions. That's reasonable, but by that same logic, if Swift is found to be in the wrong here, they should be held accountable for breaking the law.

The last two sentences of your post are just more ignorant speculation.

 

I agree it's up to the L/O to understand what he's reading. Like I said, he/she could read it to mean something other than what it does mean, and unless you know they mean it otherwise, how are you going to know you didn't understand it right? I also agree one has the ability to walk away. Why don't they just fax the potential client the contract so they can look it over and ask questions for clarification purposes, if need be? It's up in the air whether one has the freedom to take it to an attorney to look it over.

I understand what you're saying, however, we are talking facts about what Swift does, not what some companies may or may not use.

Yes, they are deducted from your settlement, but it's still a monetary investment on your part. To say the L/O risks nothing is not true.

I just told you if the L/O has followed all the stipulations of the contract, and they're still terminated, how is that the driver's fault?

Maybe he didn't have squeaky clean credit? I mean we are talking about a $130,000 investment (if purchased/leased new). If one doesn't have excellent credit, a hefty down still doesn't guarantee to the creditor that you're a safe risk. There's no guarantee they would be willing to do this.

To understand what this case is about, one has to read the briefs. The IRS, on their website, defines what an Independent Contractor is under their guidelines. Their definition and Swift's definition don't agree.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with everything in the suit, but it does have some merit.

 

The lawsuit is against Swift and is specific to the terms of Swift's lease deal, not against all companies that have independent contractors, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

International Prostars? This case/complaint was filed in 2009. The contracts these drivers signed was the "standard" Swift/IEL lease agreement(s) that had been used since 1996 when Swift first started the Lease/Operator program. When I compare my lease contract of 2005 with the lease contract I signed in 1998, they are identical with the exception of the vehicle description being leased.

Obviously you don't! Since you have no applicable knowledge of the contracts and services from the years prior to your coming back to Swift from Prime.

And you think that has changed? That Swift, at any point in time, during these past two decades, has ever outright purchased trucks in their fleet(s)? Swift has been "Fleet Leasing" since I started there in 1996, and before...my statements and knowledge come from my time there. If Swift has changed how they "rotate" their used trucks...doesn't matter one bit to this discussion.

This suit is actually about the true definition of an Independent Contractor. Swift's definition is dramatically different from that of the IRS and the Federal Government and Contract Law:

This is the definition from the IRS....please take your time reading (and comprehending) the part; "You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed." this is the section where the discrepancy is at it's peak! These three sentences require autonomy on the part of the lessee and the lessor. Do you, as a L/O have the autonomy to offer your services, with your leased equipment, [not a Swift trailer since you have no authority with that equipment] to offer even "power only" services to another customer...besides Swift? NO YOU DON'T!! Swift controls your every move! They, in the agreement you signed, are the only one who can assign freight for you to P/U and deliver. You cannot, [legally and by terms of your agreement and the "Non Compete Clause of the agreement] offer your services to any competitor or other business interest without first obtaining permission to do so, from Swift. Therefore, you have no autonomy!

Swift requires you to have their DOT/ICC information on your truck. The law requires it. However, Swift also does not allow you to remove their information/markings from your truck....even if you had your own authority. Swift requires you to operate on their base plate...you are not allowed to obtain your own! Do you have a choice in which insurance you will purchase? NO YOU DON"T...even if you could get a better price for the same levels of coverage.

 

To all of you "puppets" of Swift!

You seem to be "defending" the one who signs or distributes your hard earned dollar. but to what extent? Do you not realize that by having this definition, this decision, run in the drivers favor, that it will benefit not only you who now drive or lease with Swift...but that this decision and definition of what a true Independent Contractor really is will effect any and all companies in this industry?!

By forcing Swift, and the others, to comply with set guidelines, that you will have the autonomy to not just sit and wait on the freight to come to you. That you as an Independent Contractor, could take other freight that could be available to get yourself relocated in a better freight zone where Swift then has freight available. Sure, you can right now, on your own dime, dead head to another area...at no remuneration except the fact that the fuel consumed is a write off on your taxes. But that is not a profit...it is a loss no matter how you twist it to make it appear that it is no big deal.

To those of you who are commenting on this action, and those who are claiming to know the contract in question. How can you know about either of these things without having read them? YOU CAN'T....you can act like truck stop coffee counter lawyers with your half baked, self proclaimed expertise, and say how everything should be dealt with....because you "heard it from another driver who was there"!

You can spout off about having read and understand the contract, or don't sign if you don't understand it! Now how is that possible in this situation? Did you know that prior to 2002, all lease contracts and lease trucks were issued out of Phoenix (or Memphis on the east group) and that Swift would not fax, mail or allow you to read over the contract until you were there to see it?

Here is a driver...all excited about improving his career, taking his journey the next step up...300, 500, 1000 miles from home...already gone through all the hoops to terminate his company driver ties....technically unemployed for an hour or two...about to sign the dotted line for HIS/HER ticket to the future. OH WAIT...I don't understand what this legal jargon really means...could it be this, could it be that.....but Timmy the Dispatcher said this, and Jimmy the recruiter said that...but this contract doesn't say the same thing.

So you don't understand, and ask to be allowed to send the document to your "LAWYER".....OH BOY DID YOU SAY THE WRONG THING.....LAWYER....You might as well have punched Jerry Moyes in the nose. Say that word...everything stops! Prior to 2006 the lease agreements and Line Haul contracts were not allowed to be "reviewed" until signed...and there was no clause within to cover a change of mind...not even 24 or 48 hours if you had a change of heart. Now here you sit...all your "equipment" and belongings are piled neatly outside the door to IEL...there is no room for "that clutter" in their offices, so you leave it outside hoping no one will want to take your dirty shorts for their own! Now you are reminded that you either sign or leave...how you get home is your problem...after all...YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED!!!!

On my second lease with Swift it was even more drastic....the company truck being emptied out and left at your home terminal...in my case Sparks....Swift even paid for the flight up to Sea-Tac Seattle...but no arrangements for ground transportation to the Sumner Terminal...$38.00 cab ride got me there. I had arranged, rather "opted" to lease a Volvo 680, after reading the contract...at the last page, the description of vehicle...Kenworth W900L....I wasn't happy...but I was stuck. They reminded me that to get home I was on my own...not their problem. Who was there from IEL? No one...the Swift recruiter was the one to "assist" me in completing the documents....post-it arrows where to sign on 3 pages....OH YES...the truck won't be ready till tomorrow...we will put you in a company truck overnight!

HEY INJUN....

Since you weren't there when the "good times" and the old contested contracts were being used, this might interest you.

All these "big changes" in how Swift does and handles their business...has anyone noticed that these changes are in direct relation to specific complaints being raised and filed against Swift in these various law suits? I have...I have been highly entertained at all the "driver friendly" offerings that Swift has achieved in these last 3 years....all right in step with Federal Suits filed against them.

But....obviously.....there is no merit to any of these cases......dream a little dream of flower covered hills and a pit of molten lava at the bottom when your perfect world of L/O'ing is suddenly shoved down your throat....since "at will employment" is of course the same thing as "mutual agreement" in contract terminology....well at Swift it is....until the next suit comes forward.....without merit!

Ask yourself one question; "Why does Swift want to be 85% L/O-O/O?"
Could it be that the L/O and O/O take 97% of the overhead and liability away from Swift? NAH...THAT CAN'T BE WHY!

 

Tom, I didn't say anything about "big" changes.

Every time somebody sues, the people still here lose. What's the tradeoff going to be this time? Complete scrapping of the leasing program? Gee, thanks. Maybe there's a reason I don't want to be a company driver.

But that doesn't seem to occur to people who want to attack the contract from every angle possible.

I'm stepping out of this discussion. Not because I "lost" anything. Looking at your statement, it appears you've tried to bitterly move toward a center point. It's the angry tone. I just don't feel like dealing with it.

I'll wait to see what the judge says.

Amazing how one guy, who was fired for cause as a company driver, can stir up a forum.

 

Spouting off?

It seems perfectly clear to me that by your own words (in red) that you could simply "Not sign the contract" if you weren't permitted to read it.

What kind of fool would sign a contract that they had not read and did not fully understand?

At that point any thinking person says to himself/herself...."I'm not signing the "Binding Contract" until I fully understand it".

Well....There's your red flag right there!

Again I ask....What kind of fool would continue at that point?

There's red flag number two!

What kind of fool would sign a contract that they weren't allowed to read or review until AFTER it's signed?

And yet, YOU signed it anyway?

It's the same with any O/O lease to a company...The O/O assumes quite a bit of responsibility....BUT!

As an O/O or L/O you are still insured by and therefore a liability to the company you are leased to....Regardless that you pay the insurance premium for your truck, It's still their insurance carrier and their name on the truck and for the most part their liability.

An O/O carries 100% of the overhead and that's part of the price of owning the business.

A L/O can "walk away" at any time and that's pretty much it but an O/O has a real stake in his business and can't just walk away from it if he gets his panties in a wad over something!

A "real" O/O can't be "fired" and kicked off of their truck either...His "lease" can be terminated but the money that he has invested in the business cannot be taken from him.

These "fleece deals" are a fools game...You pays your money and you takes your chances!