Tricolor/Knight Transportation

Apparently Tricolor is owned by Knight now. I had a phone interview with Tricolor which did not go well.

Just a few months ago Tricolor would not hire anyone with less than two years experience. Now they're advertising they'll take anyone with 6 months. Trend?

Long story, short- I jump around too much with small companies as a 1099 contractor.

My argument was that technically I never left any of those companies since I could literally drive for them tomorrow if they called and I was never fired or quit.

They just never called me back after we could not agree on the next load/contract.

At the end of the conversation, Tricolor rep tells me to go work for Swift for 6 months and call her back after that.

My response to her: So go get exploited by Swift and THEN come and allow myself to be exploited by you? Doesn't the same family own both Swift and Knight?

She did not appreciate the levity I tried to impose. I called and spoke to a 'recruiting supervisor' for Knight and asked him if it's common practice to recruit for sister/cousin companies like that. He called me a 'professional arguer' and hung up on me.

Incidentally, I was also turned down by Schneider, most likely due to my refusal to provide the recruiter an address in Chicago. I was visiting Chicago at the time of the call, looking for driving work with Chicago pay, but to reset in Texas where I live. [I've been told it is doable and even came across a few drivers doing just that. I'm starting to think it's an albino variation of the job, i.e. rare and unusual] I was there for a few weeks and had been there last fall for a month, staying with a friend for no longer than a month on and off. The recruiter insisted that I provide an address based on that and I refused stating that legally it was not a change of address.

My vehicle is registered in Texas and I've had the same address for over 3 years. Before last fall I hadn't been to Chicago in over 7 years. Needless to say, I'm pretty sure my unstable employment history was the deal breaker and her insistence on the Chicago address was simply a needless pencil-pusher power struggle.

I won the battle but lost the war...

Ok, long story, long.

Maybe not bad companies based on the above, but definitely not breaking any stereotypes of recruiters doing what they do.

 

My experience thus far in trucking has been with small 'illegal' operations. Just like recruiters 'fudge' or 'omit' to get people into the seats, small companies lie about letting you drive legal [or even remotely close to it] and their equipment being in working order.

Usually within the first couple weeks I find out what is true or false about a carrier and if it's not acceptable, I walk.

Some things that are not acceptable- bouncing checks, no money for fuel, mandatory illegal HOS operation, and mandatory vehicle maintenance and pickups/crosstowns without pay.

As a recruiter, if your interviewee explains his bouncing around is due to the above, what is the point of blaming the driver? I had a recruiter then turn around and ask me- why do you keep driving for companies like that?

My question is: why does the DOT allow companies to keep operating like that?

For my part, I keep getting lied to about company policies and practices. Any of that which will hurt my license and I walk. My CDL is how I make money and I've learned quickly that carriers do not care what happens to a driver's CDL and some of them apparently do not care about their CSA score either.

My first question to companies is: do you run legal? Their answer 100% of the time: of course we do.

There are plenty of complaints on this forum about problems within national carriers, both their recruitment process and operational procedures. What drivers wouldn't like for those things to change? The recruiters I spoke with seemed to be more concerned about some 'personality test' than hiring a good driver. Maybe I was wrong in my assessment. You're welcome to disagree.

I think a recruiter should know the difference between bouncing around as a contractor with small carriers and taking 'company driver' positions with legitimate companies and either quitting or getting fired frequently.

Yes, I would like it if recruitment for national trucking companies was more knowledgeable about trucking and the industry in general.

If you think recruitment by the bigs is a well-lubed, fine-tuned, attrition-lowering apparatus, great.

 

When it comes to driving- I make my appointments on time; I take care of the equipment; and I drive safely. Those should be the most important things. That you read something someone wrote on a forum and determine from that you wouldn't work with or hire them, tells me just as much about what it would be like working with or for you. I'd take a pass as well, so the feeling is mutual.

Nah, I think I'll keep it the way it is. You really seem to think that telling strangers what they 'need' to do is how to go about things. Amazing.

 

A common practice here in the border region is for carriers to hire Mexican nationals with 'federal licenses' from Mexico.

When I worked construction here I had to deal with the lower wages due to people coming over on tourist visas and happily illegally working for minimum wage. Now I see I have to deal with the same in trucking.

Freight originating in Mexico can be hauled by a Mexican national under a 'federal license' issued in Mexico. However, people are coming over on tourist visas or working without status with federal licenses and working on freight originating and terminating in the US. I teamed with one such person because he didn't know English and had been put OOS because of it.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/policy/dhs-cross-border-trucking-guidelines.pdf

See page 3 in the above document.