Prime INC.

That's not surprising. Such is the reality of Fleece Operator agreements.

 

I remember reading stories in Landline about New Lawsuit Prime as far back as 1998. Seems every other week they were being sued by somebody, usually a bunch of O/Os working together through OOIDA, so the name fit. Sounds like it still does.

 

It is my understanding that Prime pays reefer drivers 72% of the revenue of the load (per their website); that includes all expenses to haul the load from shipper to consignee. The driver pays for the fuel on the truck because that is a legitimate operating expense for their business (they are considered business owners being provided a tool to do business with and a guarantee of freight). The driver pays for all the other expenses for hauling that load, including tolls, which Prime says it bills to the customer. Doesn't it then make since as well that Prime calculates into the 72% of revenue that the driver is to pay for the reefer fuel since that is a part of getting the load delivered properly? As for being charged a fee for dropping the trailer for another to deliver, that seems to fall in the same category. The driver delivering the load that was dropped needs to get paid somehow. Since driver A was paid the 72% revenue for the load, where would the money come from to pay driver B for delivering the load? Obviously, driver A, as a business owner, needs to pay driver B out of his/her revenue (the 72% paid for the load) to deliver the load for them. Again, this does not appear to be a "ripoff" by Prime. That drop fee to pay the other driver becomes a legitimate business expense for driver A for not being able to deliver the load for which he/she was paid the entire revenue due a L/O from Prime. If driver A ends up in a similar situation where he/she has to finish a load for someone else, they would expect to get paid the short haul fee. Whose responsibility is that fee? Certainly not Prime's as they have paid the original driver all the revenue due a driver for delivering the load.

I learned this principle years ago as a substitute teacher. Teachers are guaranteed a certain salary per year. However, there are times when they cannot be in their class and a substitute has to be brought in. Do you know how that substitute was paid? The teacher was docked the pay for the day and that pay was used to pay the substitute. Should the teacher complain that they had to pay $XX.XX for someone to cover the class they were not able to do? Of course not and the same thing applies here.

 

One thing I've noticed about people that post about going broke, be it with Prime or any other company, many have a problem stringing 2 sentences together. I understand the whole mess with leasing but if you read some of the posts, it's always they did this they did that with no responsibility of their own what-so-ever. Not saying I've seen it in this thread yet but it always happens. On top of it there are so many posts I have read from seemingly illiterate people it's no wonder people are going broke, they have no idea what they're reading let alone signing when getting into a lease situation. I too have talked to Prime drivers that are perfectly happy and I've talked to O/O's that say they'd never buy another truck because they can't make any money, the IRS is after them, whatever. Many people spend all they do make as fast as it comes in, I mean I've talked to many driver that claimed to have gone broke yet they had several cars, bikes, boats, houses, etc...etc... Well how about putting some away and paying your taxes? Ah you dont know nothing boy is the response I've gotten more often than not. When you see some of these same posts talking about how much they owe the IRS it's impossible to not have made money and owe those amounts. I dunno maybe it's me but there are alot of drivers behind the wheel that can't add or read or write. Maybe Prime's responsibility is to make sure they have competent people working for them and not those that most assuredly are going to lose everything. Not trying to bash, like I said, you can see it in any thread whether it's about company X or Prime or Shcneider or even some of the ones with better reputations. I dunno, just some random observations I've made, am I wrong?

 

No, you're not wrong. Companies that offer fleece operator deals know that some (most?) of their fleece drivers don't have good business sense, so those companies milk those drivers. It's the American way, for sure.

One has to think for himself and be able to make rational, responsible choices in a free country. If I can get rich by exploiting those who think I'm their fairy godfather watching out for their best interest, a sugar daddy that thinks for them so they don't have to think for themselves, then so be it.

But I should also expect the fur to fly if I try to exploit somebody who knows his #### and doesn't play the role of doormat.

 

Well said, al! I have spoken with Prime and Prime drivers and the drivers confirm what Prime has told me, they teach you how to be successful and give you the tools to be a good business owner. They even tell you up front that you have to be willing to keep the left door closed and drive to succeed. Yet they get accused of taking advantage of drivers. Trucking is about the only industry where so many decide to be a business owner yet do not have the drive it takes. When those who were never cut out to be business owners fail, they would rather blame the company then accept the fact that it wasn't their cup of tea.

Prime, just like every company out there, is there to make a profit. From the way I see it, if a driver is willing to learn from their training and work they will make a good amount of money with Prime, or any other company. If they want to sightsee and haul freight while at it, they won't make money, but like you said, they will complain the loudest of how unfair the company was to them.

 

I agree with you, Paw. However, if I own a trucking company and decide to sign ten guys who have bad credit and no business sense, and 9 or even all ten fail, whose fault is it? I have to take part of the blame, as I should know better than to take such a risk. Of course, I can lower my risk and potential losses if I can screw those drivers later somehow. When the inevitable happens, my landing will be a lot softer if I play my cards right. I know this UP FRONT, of course, with any new fleece driver I take under my wing.

Yes, the companies should, and DO, know better. They sign many people on to fleece deals they know will probably fail. Perhaps those drivers will fail because they aren't savy enough. But perhaps the companies know up front the drivers don't stand a snowball's chance in a volcano at succeeding as a fleece operator in such a competitive industry.

 

I partially agree with your comments, Tip. However, in the case of Prime, I don't think they want people to fail. At least not from what they have told me which has been confirmed by the many Prime drivers I have spoken with. They add two days on to orientation for those who want to enter the lease program just to teach them the ins and outs of business ownership. After that, they provide ongoing training and help for those who request it. Yes, they probably could save themselves some headaches by doing better screening of those who want to sign up. Again, this is the only industry I know of that so readily offers business ownership to anyone. Try getting a franchise with McDonalds or someone like that and see the hoops you have to jump through.

I have lived in this small town for 8 years now and have watched a lot of people start up businesses only to close them a year or two later. Why? Because they were either not ready for or not cut out for business ownership. In most business startups they tell you to expect to run in the red for 3 to 5 years so have enough capital set aside to make it through. I hear industry consultants like Kevin Rutherford and Tim Brady tell people considering O/O or L/O situations to make sure your financial house is in order before taking the plunge. While a credit check may indicate to the company a problem exists, that wouldn't solve all issues. There is a learning curve to business ownership and certainly, I believe, more so in the trucking industry; especially with today's freight market. For example, I hear people on Sirius all the time complaining about the tax situation, for one. Problem is, they make "all the extra money" as an O/O but fail to set aside the amount for taxes like they had happening as a company driver when the company withheld it for them.

Maybe someone could help the entire industry by developing an Owner Operator Aptitude Test that drivers would have to pass before being able to sign a lease or owner-op agreement. LOL

 

In the beginning Prime was called Midwest Trans out of FT. Scott Kansas. They then offered the same things they offer now 1 down and a dollar at the end of the lease. They would run your socks off till the last 6 months of the lease if you didn't put back enough to pay the last 6 payments they would break you and re lease the truck again to some one else and do the same thing over and over again. Drivers went to court back then and won and shut them down they didn't have title to the trucks they leased so how could they lease what they didn't own. They reopened a few years later same people same thing then they got sued again for the same thing and lost again. Thus the new prime which uses Prime leasing to lease you the equipment then you lease it on to prime INC as a O/O so they don't have nothing directly involved in the truck is the way they get by with it. Just the whole story as i heard it from one that worked for them in the beginning along time ago when they first started back in Ft. Scott.

 

I've heard that was going on at PrimeLawsuit. Then the company changed its name to New Lawsuit Prime. This was going at England and Simon back in the day, too. Fleece drivers would be run hard for a good part of the fleece agreement, then their mileage would be cut way back. Many would then lose their trucks, the outfits would get the rigs back, and the drivers would be replaced with new suckers. It's a miracle those outfits never saw a disgruntled, fleeced former driver carrying an AK.