Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation Forced labor Minimum wageThis lawsuit is brought

Apparently, you don't understand the lawsuit. You have drivers who want to be owner operators. Swift (and others) developed a program where these often inexperienced drivers would be able to lease a truck and then own it at the end of the lease and be an owner operator. It was stated that these lease operators were buying the trucks. In reality, they are leasing them and I believe must buy out the lease at the end of a fixed term. That is pretty straight forward. It is set up similar to other types of leases. Some only have a $1 buyout, others fair market. Most of those who participate in these leases have little experience, no money for a down payment or to run their equipment and poor credit. They don't have the means to buy a truck through conventional means. Swift offers them an opportunity to actually own the truck at the end of their lease or to walk away.

When they signed their contract, they agreed to pay for all expenses involved in running the truck. That includes fuel, tires, maintenance, qualcomm and any other costs or repairs. Again, fairly standard. About the only difference that I saw in a quick read through is the qualcomm. Swift apparently uses qualcomm to dispatch lease operators, owner operators and company drivers. There are other carriers who also require that owner operators install a qualcomm in their trucks as a condition of leasing onto their authority.

Swift and most others who offer a lease purchase to drivers prohibit them from taking the truck to another carrier until the lease is completed or paid out. Lease operators have nothing invested in the beginning. Since most have poor credit and limited experience, Swift has a right to protect their interests by requiring lease operators to keep their trucks at Swift and they can then deduct lease payments and any other expenses from their settlements. The only difference between doing a lease purchase from Swift or any other carrier and from a leasing company or lender is that the lease operator cannot take the truck to another carrier until the balance of the lease is paid. The lease operators can take the truck with them if they pay off the lease. What is wrong with that? I would not want to finance a truck for someone I didn't know and have them take it to my competitor. There would be no way to insure my interests. Swift is not prohibiting these lease operators from taking their trucks with them as long as they pay off their lease. It is part of the contract that they agreed to when they committed to the lease.

Most people who enter into these leases are not businessmen. They don't have a clue when it comes to running a business. Apparently, injun and others are making their lease with Swift work for them. Any business involves risk. When you lease a truck from Swift or any other carrier, you have very little risk. The carrier or owner of the truck has everything on the table. If the lease operator trashes the truck and fails to keep it up, then it is the owner who must then take the truck and have it detailed and repaired. One reason that these lease operators get into leases is so that they don't have much of a risk.

I would wager that most of those who are involved in this lawsuit thought that they were going to get rich without having to work much. I have yet to meet anyone who has achieved any level of success who hasn't worked hard for it. You pay a price for being successful. I would also expect that some of these people would take extra time off and try to get home every weekend rather than running their truck. When you have high debt, you don't go home. You run. I have no sympathy for these people. They want something for nothing. If injun and others can make a go of their leases with Swift and not whine about it, then others should be able to do the same. From reading her posts, I would not expect her to get on here and belittle Swift if things didn't work out at this point. I think that she would accept responsibility for her success or failure, learn from any mistakes and go about her business.

Another point of contention in the lawsuit is that Swift did not comply with the fair labor laws. Apparently, these lawyers don't know much about the fair labor laws. Trucking has been exempt nearly from the beginning. Most drivers are paid mileage unless they drive locally. Most others are paid percentage. In any case, these lease operators should be filing suit against themselves since they are independent businessmen and not employees of Swift. Even if these people were company drivers, they would not be subject to the labor laws in the United States. Do a search and you should be able to find the ruling. It was around the time when the Interstate Commerce Commission was created, as I recall. These people don't have a case. There is nothing that I read that should be sufficient for them to get a judgment against Swift.

The last thing that I remember is that Swift cheated them by paying short miles. I agree that the technology exists where drivers and those leased to carriers could be paid closer to actual miles. I don't know how Swift pays their driver or lease operators, but it should be spelled out in the contract they sign. More carriers have gone to "practical miles" in calculating driver and owner operator pay. It is closer to actual miles than HHG. This is the only part of the lawsuit where they may have any basis to obtain a judgment. If that is all there is, then I would expect that a settlement could be worked out. If Swift did settle, then they would open a can of worms where anyone who has ever lease a truck from them could come back and file a claim. It isn't in Swift's best interests to settle this case. If I were them, I would drag this out as long as possible. It is a frivolous lawsuit.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

The contract states that we can, with approval from Swift take our truck prior to the end of the lease, to another carrier. It is a little bit of a hassle, but it can be done. Hence, why we sign two contracts. One with Swift and one with IEL.

 

I hope swift loses on the mileage factor alone.Its always been a thorn poking me about how the shippers,trucking companys,brokers,etc. came up with this scheme about miles.Short miles, house hold goods,practical,whatever they deem to call them.They were divised as a way to cheat the trucker,wether he be a company,lease or owner op.Todays technoligy will put your correct distance within 15 foot of your destination.I drive by the mile and over the years I've figured I lose between 8 and 10% of the miles I drive.To me its the same as asking a man to work 9 hours but you're only going to pay him for 8.Its a rippoff and someday someone will beat it in court and rightfully so.

If a trucker was paid the correct milage he actually drove,I believe we would have alot less turnover in this industry.There's alot of people out here that would have made it and become a good employee by getting that extra 3 or 400 dollars a month that was stolen from them by a scam!

 

Swift charges the customer by HHG, and we are paid by HHG.

 

As far as I see the real reason for the suit is the fact(afaik) you can't take that truck you leased to another carrier and get work, or do with as you please.


*** I'm a newbie so... ***

 

If it's your lease, why would swift care where you took the truck as long as the payment is made?

*** I'm a newbie so... ***

 

As a tool for hiring, but not for IEL's use. IEL only looks at employent history.

 

pete3871--I agree with practical mile pay for drivers. However, I also believe the mileage scale used is unimportant. If you are being paid .50/mi on HHG miles, your carrier would probably pay .45/mi on practical miles. There is a certain amount a carrier can charge their customer and a certain amount the carrier can afford to pay their drivers. It is not some scheme to cheat drivers out of pay.

Let the flames fly, but both rates and pay are supply and demand. Both are determined by what the next guy is willing to do it for.