Wal-Mart could own millions in Back Pay

HousTank, if you are consistently getting that much difference between paid and actual miles, you're doing it wrong. And my guess is you are following the fuel routing and the fuel stops are out of route. With the load I am on right now and the three loads stacked on me, there is a difference of 40 miles total between the paid and actual miles (according to my gps). I never look at Swifts suggested routing other than to see where they want me to fuel. And if that fuel stop isn't on my route, I won't stop there. If I need to get fuel on that route, I will wait until I get close to a stop on my route then call to get opened up for fuel at that location.

Also, there is a free app called Truckers Path Pro that shows all kinds of truck stops where ever you are, but it also has a trip planner that gives you three options for your trip. You can look up your route with that and compare it to Swifts routing and decide where you want to go. Swift doesn't care if you take a different route than what they suggest or stop at a different fuel stop, as long as your route of choice isn't too far over on miles.

 

Most definitely Walmart will appeal the decision and they will probably get a lot of help & advice from the trucking industry. Nothing will change.

 

Just people's Republic of California drivers

 

Its based on the wal-mart drivers that live and work in the jurisdiction of California, or like how Luse says " the peoples republic of california".

It is long overdue, I know many of you, myself included, are tired of this industry wide problem where the status quo is to take advantage (financially) on the driver anyway you can.

while I was at USX it was a common argument I had with my fleet owner - he said its like that everywhere. Well my response was "why don't you be the first company that does something about it" instead of relying on social proof to justify you taking advantage of us. Heartland Express is now paying detention after 1 hr...

This ruling by the judge is a step in the right direction. But the smart lawyers at walmart will just drag this out in appeals for the next 10 years, just like swift is doing with their class action lawsuit with underpaying milage to drivers.

 

I'm guessing California has the most liberal minimum wage laws which allow for this suit. In Wisconsin even if minimum wage applied I'm pretty sure it would be a combination of line 3 and line 4 time that has to equal minimum wage.

 

Drivers are exempt from the national labor laws. California cannot control what a company does outside of their borders. With the national exemption, I am surprised that California moved forward with this lawsuit. At one time California was very pro business and pro jobs. With the communists firmly in control over the state they are doing everything possible to drive employers and jobs out of the state in the name of "fairness" and helping the workers. In reality, they are doing the opposite. All Walmart needs to do is lower driver pay and then add on the hourly rate and those drivers will make the same or perhaps less than now. Any driver making $80-100,000/year has little to complain about when it comes to wages. Or Walmart could use outside carriers to haul their freight and move their company trucks to other states or just sell that part of their fleet. These drivers and the state of California may have just shot themselves in the foot with this lawsuit.

 

You've guessed wrong. I haven't followed their routing for at least the past 3 years and plan my fuel stops, along my route, where I need. I stopped going out of route for fuel a long time ago.

When I finished the load I'm on now in the morning I go over to Cleveland OH for another down to Laredo (a broker I've been to many times). Door-to-door mty miles are 3 miles different than ppln...no problem there. Loaded door-to-door is 1628 miles actual vs 1541 on the ppln for a difference of 87 miles. There's really only one way to get there.

 

Interesting....the Wally decision being discussed (inaccurately of course) in a Swift thread and not the Wal Mart group. Probably because they have been instructed to not comment until a final resolution.

Anyway...the issue isn't about Line 4 time, the issue is "lay over" time. Wal Mart is already paid for anything and everything done on Line 4, fueling, off loading, waiting time to load (after 45 minutes) same for unload (even at a Wally facility), chaining, inspections, you name it, anything on Line 4 is paid (at above the Federal minimum wage BTW)...

My question, that I can't find the answer to...what sort of layover are they referring to? The discussion on Road Dog radio (Sirius-XM) was directed at the 10 hour break, but I have never heard anyone refer to this as a "lay over", just what it is, a mandatory (Federal, and accepted by every State of course) break. Now what constitutes a "lay over" to this decision? That is the real question!

Wally most likely will appeal the decision...and win, then the re-appeal from the petitioner which will also win, then the Supreme Court will be petitioned to review, and most likely will decline. But this process will take years and years....so who wins? If the decision is upheld, and the term is truly defined (LAYOVER) to what we know a layover to be...24 hours between dispatches...most likely the carriers will eliminate "long haul" and the majority will become almost slip seat operations, or out 250 miles and return to base. Swift did this in the past, maybe still do in some locations, but they have tried it and it almost worked, just some occasional snag from one driver not showing up for his/her shift or breakdown caused a problem.

Bottom line....drivers will not get anything out of this for sure!