Attention all company drivers!!!

McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's jr, Pizza Hut, and Taco Del mar.

 

It's very few

 

Pizza Hut? Nah, Godfathers Pizza all day baby!

 

Winner. Further submissions will not be accepted.

 

SHAME ON THA MESS! ...Ole Swifty Swift needs to Learn to SWING WIDE ITS A FRIGGIN' TRAILER

HAHAHHAHA....YA BONEHEADS

 

I've been under the impression that dash cameras had brought this matter under control. We'd had some 60 years without dash cameras, and now all of the sudden after most of the large companies have implemented them, even with draconian enforcement—such as detecting going over limit lines by mere inches, you propose that the problem has become so bad that we need to have a database singling out certain drivers. At what point do people just admit that dash cameras just don't work, and abandon them? I'll assume your request is merely anecdotal and doesn't represent the sympathies of most truckers. While it's a fact that trucking-related deaths have risen steadily since the implementation of dash cameras, they haven't risen a lot—compared to the huge decrease that happened just before they were implemented. But I would have expected an additional decrease, not an increase at all.

 

An attorney recently told me they can lie about you on your DAC too........then driver has to get Hireright to get it off and they won't until you prove you were innocent , which is pretty darn hard to prove!!

 

A law not enforced, or that is difficult or impossible to enforce, is effectively not a law. Privacy policies are normally not law, although they usually are written in legalize as a way to fool untrained people into a false sense of security. Contracts can legally be written and presented with illegal or unenforceable terms, and it's up to the party affected to figure out every detail and then go through all the trouble of challenging in court. And yes, errors on DAC can be made on purpose by any company—and they leave it to you to find them, and go through all the hassle of removing them. In most cases, there's no option to sue for damages (this is typically reserved for issues with collection agencies, not original creditors or employers). If you tried to pursue the matter in court, you might win, but more likely the company would simply argue no mens rea (intention) and you would not be able to prove malice as you'd have no evidence of it, since the trucking company would likely simply destroy any evidence that they had for you to discover before it was subpoenaed.

 

HireRight falls under the same guidelines as the 3 major credit bureaus. (Consumer privacy protection act of 2017). This act sanctions all 3 credit bureaus as well as investigative entities like HireRight to check the credit worthiness or background of individuals but within the guidelines.

Burden Of Proof:

So just like false entries can occur on your credit, they can also appear on a HireRight transcript. HireRight is not infallible and relies on information supplied by former employers. If you see an egregious entry on your HireRight transcript you have the right to dispute it by filing an appeal. The burden isn’t always with the driver.
Example:

U.S. Xpress put an ambiguous entry on my transcript that read: “Quit or dismissed from orientation”

I submitted a rebuttal for clarity (Which was it? Quit or dismissed?). Since U.S. Xpress made the claim then they bear the burden of proof.
HireRight agreed and sent an inquiry to the trucking company to provide clarity. US Xpress had to respond with quit! Which is what I did.

Later I notified HireRight again and explained that technically I wasn’t even employed by US Xpress and therefore any entries on my transcript would be unwarranted or invalid.
Again, HireRight agreed and completely removed the entire US Xpress entry from my transcript.

The point is if you want to make sure that what is being reported about you is accurate then you have a responsibility to stay on that. You can’t expect agencies to always have accurate data when it comes to every consumer.