Ok...here's another BAD company to driver for....WAYLON TRANSPORT (part of ATS)

I think ultimately the complaint about Waylon being a bad company has been proven "false". While the OP may have had a bad experience it seems to be largely in part to his/her own actions. Nice discussion, even if it did get wordy from time to time.

 

Oh Peter your so funny!! I am so sorry you took it that I was jumping all over you. I was just responding to your comments which 90% of just were not true. This is a place where our opinion's are allowed to be given , so just like you giving your opinion, I gave mine. As far as you insulting me, I am not one bit surprised by this as this is your style, and you know that everything I said is true and this is why you came back with the comments that you did. I know you are not a fan of dispatchers that is a given as it showed in every job you did by not following the instruction that were given. Anyway that being said, I really hope you find what you are looking for in Life, as I do not wish any ill will to you. Let's face it you were not happy here and you moved on end of story.

 

Wellllllll, It sure is funny how each person views things. I feel sure that the OP believes in what he is saying. I like to think that we did right. The labour board had nothing but good things to say about Waylon. They said we are doing everything right, granted, we did make a few errors. One thing was, the book keeper saw a Pilot Fuel receipt and thought it was a Pilot car bill. The second thing is Waylon did not pay the OP the last day he worked. The load was left abandoned in the yard and Waylon had to hire D&D dixy to pull the load for us, (by the way we lost money on that load) and because the OP was on commission we thought we did not have to pay him as there was no revenue. We were mistaken on that, OP please except my apology on that.


So to sum this mess up:

$25.48 expense reimbursement that was dated Jan 18th, 2013 (it was in his mail slot, Waylon thought OP had picked it up.)
$184.39 Wages on miscalculation on what bookkeeping thought was a pilot car.
$80.44 hourly wages for last day worked.
$276.95 reimbursement on your traffic violation.

Does that sum it up. I paid the ticket for the OP, too bad that the OP is not a man of his word and paid Waylon back for the ticket. As the ticket is in your name, we will be sending you a invoice in the mail.

One last note. the OP has quoted the law several times in his post. But, he also has libeled Waylon on many points. I believe Waylon has defended itself on all of the comments and now it is my turn to quote something.

OP, please read the bottom. Pay very close attention to the bolded parts. Waylon has not libeled the OP at anytime we have just stated the proven, undisputed facts.

What is libel?
Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, damages may be higher.
What is slander?
Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, the law presumes you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill would have to pay you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very hard to prove this sort of financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court.
But in the following four examples, a slander lawsuit may succeed without your proving financial loss. Even though there's no permanent record of the slander, the law will presume damages, as if it were libel, if someone:

• accuses you of a crime (unless they made the accusation to the police)
• accuses you of having a contagious disease
• makes negative remarks about you in your trade or business
• accuses you of adultery

What about the right to free speech?
The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing rights. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other rights more important. The law allows the following defences for a person who makes a defamatory statement.
What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:

• truth (known in law as "justification")
• absolute privilege
• qualified privilege
• fair comment
• responsible communication on matters of public interest

1. Truth or justification
A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.
2. Absolute privilege
There are two main examples of this defence: statements made in Parliament and statements made as evidence at a trial or in court documents. This privilege does not apply if a person repeats their evidence outside a courtroom. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of these statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.
3. Qualified privilege
This defence is where remarks that may otherwise be defined as defamatory were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defence of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.

I am not a fan of quoting the law, but in this case I will make an exception.

In closing, OP, I think in all of these posts, the comments about Waylon have been disproved. I hope this clears up any confusion.

One last thing OP;
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Thanks

Yours Truly
One confused truthful employer

 

Wow! You know some people (and this just my opinion) really are blow hards. I really think that all of these posts tell the truth and as far as I am concerned this is over. va6yag, until you realize what you do to yourself,you will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. We all wish you the best in your future. But I think we all know that you will continue down the same path of destructive and self limiting behavior. FYI, the saying you are referring to has biblical origins. I knew the saying long before the movie. You should watch who's intellect you insult and maybe focus on your own. One last quote for you "Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something" - Plato

 

Sorry guys, one last thing before I call it a night. I usually don't get drawn into these battles, I just felt like Waylon was getting the short end of the stick. It is hard enough for me to hire good quality drivers without having to fight bad public opinion. That is it, have a good night all. Also I reread the OP post and saw that he had put the literal quote in there, instead of being pretentious I just used the quote that everyone would know. Have a good night all. I am sure that someone will have a long winded reply to my post. (Again just my personal opinion, LOL)

 

Yes, Peter. As per the Webster dictionary;
pre·ten·tious
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈten(t)-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French prétentieux, from prétention pretension, from Medieval Latin pretention-, pretentio, from Latin praetendere
Date: 1832
1 : characterized by : as a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) <the pretentious fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him ' Richard Watts> b : expressive of , unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature <pretentious language> <pretentious houses>

I think that sums up your posts.
(just in case you did not know what that word means)

 

I had a driver like that , could not call his miles in on Friday night ( other 23 did ) so his $ would be in his bank Monday morning , but wife CRIED we never paid on time. His paperwork was usually 30 days late but he was BANKROLLING us !

If he was pulled over for anything by the police his version sounded like a chase scene in Smokey and the Bandit , and as in convoy THEY HAD CHOPPERS in the AIR

 

LOL, way too funny. It is almost like, if there is no drama their life's are dull! But you know you have to be careful, those Canadian customs officers will pull their guns for the slightest offence. Oh WAIT, they don't have guns!