Hirschbach threatens to file lawsuits to keep drivers from leaving

According to some of the drivers that used to work there it was more like a Greek tragedy than a comedy!

 

People who threaten lawsuits don’t file them. If it’s not enforceable under the law, then the contract has no merit and cannot be upheld by the court. That is the real issue. It’s like saying dear district attorney, we’ve given driver Smith permission to transport heroin across state lines. It’s in the contract, so don’t worry about it.

Also, as a business person you should respond with the following : sue me MF , because you won’t get a dime.

As a trucker, you should be able to relate. This is as worthless as a restraining order. It’s a piece of paper.

 

Where do you get the infinite indentured servitude part from? You must have read something different from what I did.

 

as the half to a JUUUUST about completely fed up driver... I must shout AYYMEN!

 

The double clutch! Thats the big secret you aren't supposed to take with you. Or is it backing into a parking spot at the end of the day? It has to be one of those secrets.

 

The one thing I see that I think may be legally questionable is that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act makes it illegal for a creditor to inform third parties such as an employer or prospective employer that you owe a debt. They can certainly say that you have a contract with them preventing you from seeking other employment, but that letter explicitly describes a loan and a promissory note. The author did sign it as a lawyer so he may know an exception. Not all lawyers are smart though. This one apparently works for a trucking company after all.

From the FDCPA...

(b) Communication with third parties
Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy, a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.

1692b only has to do with locating a debtor.

 

Business is business.

The driver signed a legally binding contract assuming it doesn't break any state or federal labor laws. Why wouldn't you hire/poach a driver seeking to better themselves? This is a question easily approached in the interview process.

My answer would simply be that even at having to reimburse $7500 to my current employer, your company offers much more of a financial incentive to drive for. Furthermore i ran these numbers past my current managers giving them the chance to match or come close to your companies generous package and they have been unable to match.

Driver, pay your $7500 and move on with maybe even a nice note about what you liked about their company. No time for sour grapes. Keep it curt, courteous and professional. Never burn bridges unless you're trying to keep those pesky Russians out.

 

The letter in and of itself violates labor laws. The contract is "work for us or pay $7,500 (prorated)". There is nothing in the agreement that prevents a driver from moving to another company provided the driver continues the repayment provisions.

It's like the L/P deals where the driver can't take the truck to a different carrier - if he can't it's not a L/P.

 

No, I didn't read through all 18 pages of the drama.. These contracts are really simple, you have two options, fulfill the contract, or pay for the services that you received outside of the contract. You want out of a contract that you agreed to? Simple.. Pay for the services.