EEOC Brings Class Action Against Prime for Sex Discrimination

While working for the U.S. Forest Service on Mt. Hood a female co-worker and I spent weeks on end living out of one tent while constructing a high altitude campsite inventory. On my first day of employment the District Ranger made this point very, very, clear.

She said that Forest service employees are responsible for creating and maintaining a positive work environment. Here at Zig Zag there is a zero tolerance policy in place to ensure the prevention of sexual harassment. “While on the hill there will be no sexual advances what so ever, there will not be any requests for sexual favors, there will be no sexually motivated physical contact or any other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature at all ever.”

In my opinion otr co-ed training would be a perfectly acceptable practice just as it was at the USFS as long as there are equitable safeguards in place that protect all parties involved. Included within the parameters of these safeguards are employee education and training programs that clearly explain the company’s sexual harassment, abuse, and anti-violence policies, the complaint process and how it works, and the investigative process and how it works.

I believe that industry wide trucking companies must facilitate strategies that foster a working environment where both male and female employees can feel reasonably safe, where they are treated fairly, and where emphasis is placed on getting the job done.

From what I have read regarding the Women In Trucking Associations articles more and more women are pursuing careers in truck driving and that is why now is the time to make improvements to the trucking industry as a whole in order to be more "female friendly “otherwise the industry is going to be in a litigious (sp?) world of hurt.

With that being said women are not going to stay away from trucking but the "men" who cannot handle themselves in a respectful and professional manner while on the job are going to be forced out, made an example of, and then prosecuted. Therefore trucking companies must employ driver trainers who understand that facilitating a professional teaching environment is not only essential but mandatory. For their own future as well as the industries.

 

Exactly, people can and should be held accountable for their actions.

 

And, I know you are completely serious. But:

What I see in these comments above are three very different but equally offensive generalizations.

1. Women are looking for reasons to holler "sexual harassment" and ferret out any excuse to make a complaint.

2. Women cannot stand up for and protect themselves and need some office guy with Victorian values to protect them.

3. Men are all just animals, looking for any warm moist spot to park their body parts, even if it means by force.

Rollover even indicates, in one statement that he would "cross the line" if he felt a woman had "a chip on her shoulder," yet fails to define what that means. Is my debating him here considered having "a chip on my shoulder?" Should I be watching my back to make sure Rollover isn't following me around, waiting for the first opportunity to "cross the line?" And, exactly what does that mean? (*For the record, I don't believe Rollover has the slightest interest in tracking me down.)

I refuse to live my life based on fear of what could happen. Rather, I live full force, enjoying life and being who I am. I am confident I will wind up okay, even if I get scuffed up along the way. I refuse to simply exist in a protective bubble. I want to live.

I simply cannot bring myself to believe such nonsense and it's incredible to me that these ideas of women being or wanting to be victims while men are monsters are still so prevalent.

 

Some Are

Some Are

Some Are

 

Yes. SOME. But to lump all persons of each gender into these generalizations is neither right nor fair to either gender. To create a blanket policy that limits one group of people in favor of another because some of each group might cause a problem is not only wrong, it is illegal.

I personally was limited by this policy of Prime's. I was told yes, there are openings in the tanker division, which paid, on average, 50cpm more than reefer, which was where I was limited to staying...despite the fact they were screaming for tanker drivers at the time. Why? Because I am a woman. The excuse given was they didn't trust any man to simply do his job, which would have been to teach me the job. And they didn't have any women to train me for it. This policy effectively barred all women from the tanker division. In the entire time I was there, I never met a female tanker driver.

Since women, to all effects and purposes, were barred from advancement into the higher paying tanker division, it was discrimination. Period.

And no, I am not party to this lawsuit. Yet.

 

Im not lumping everyone together

With that, I would have to agree that you were discriminated against, and that is wrong, and illegal.

Saying that you have to wait for a trainer is one thing ... but to say they wont train you at all is a whole different basket of strawberries.


PS ... Question: While having to wait for a trainer, is the trainee paid anything? Maybe thats what Im missing. Because where I am, once your in the training program, you are paid training pay even while waiting for a trainer.

 

It would be great if companies had a vetting process for trainers. If a driver is willing to be a trainer that's all the requirement needed at many of the companies. I would like to think that someone in a unsafe situation would grab their gear and get out ASAP. Easy for me to say having never been in a situation like that. I have been a trainer. I have not trained with any women and would not feel comfortable in that situation in an OTR setting. Not passing judgement -if I were in that situation the woman would be treated with respect and no different than the men. I have a lot of respect for the women truckers I meet and work with out on the road. They should'nt have to put up with an extra helping of crap just because of their gender. Yeah there are a lot of dirtbags out there. They are just the minority though. The rest of us are out here working hard to support our families and helping out another driver when we can. When I started driving bus my first trainer was great and tough as nails. She taught me to drive safely and defensively and I use the skills daily. Thank you Brenda, wherever you are!

 

Trainees at Prime are only paid while they are on a truck. They are not paid while waiting for a trainer. This is the same at Swift. The difference is, Swift leaves the option open for cross gender training, which makes the wait time for a mentor the same for both men and women. While I'm sure problems do crop up on occasion, those problems, when brought to management's attention, are dealt with quickly and decisively...on an individual basis. This is why you are not seeing such a lawsuit being brought against Swift by EEOC themselves.

P.S. I didn't say you lumped everyone into those categories. I was saying Prime did. And the forum members who said those statements also did, although since them making those statements, while wrong, doesn't limit anyone in employment, it is not illegal. However, you as a man have been lumped into the category of monster. This is a direct attack on your character. And that is what I was trying to point out.

 

Appreciate your posts Injun. You have a insight into this that many of us don't.

 

This would be a non issue if women stayed at home, raised the children and kept the house.