Are You Ready for Roehl's PreNup Agreement?

Oh wow, Well that lumps them in with Stevens & CR England in my book, sad too because they could be more attractive than Prime, but decide to go the complete opposite way with it.

 

I see, I was unaware of that. That is a shame. I was under the impression of CDL training.

 

They are training you. That costs money. All they ask for is you stay there for a certain amount of time, and if you don't, you pay for your training. Where is the problem?

 

I've heard of companies that provide CDL training to new drivers (who don't already have one) doing this, but correct me if I'm wrong about this:

Roehl is now making drivers who ALREADY have their CDL (went to an independent school/CC) and want to work for Roehl, sign an agreement that the driver will be responsible for paying $3,130 if the driver leaves before reaching 75,000 miles?

Oh man. That's too good. What a joke.

 

I still don't see an issue.

 

The $3,000 isn't to cover the cost of the CDL. It's covering the cost of ORIENTATION (including time on the road with a trainer).

As someone else said, contracts should be a two way street. Too often they proctect the employer more than the employee. If there's a guaranteed minimum miles per week/day available that gets taken off the required 75,000 miles then there's room for discussion.

Five years ago Roehl was among my top choices. After a snafu with my background check they told me to take a flying leap at a doughnut rolling down hill. After hearing how things have changed I'm pretty glad things didn't work out.

 

My main issue is employment is at-will so they can fire you for no good reason(i.e. they just don't like your face). so there has to be clauses & protections in there that prevent abuse of the situation, which there very well could be but we don't know what's in there. If there's no protection for the driver, then it's way too lopsided in favor of Roehl.

If it's really one sided it's unenforceable.

Unconscionability

Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is. The idea here again is to ensure fairness, so a court will consider:

• whether one side has grossly unequal bargaining power
• whether one side had difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement (due to language or literacy issues, for example), or
• whether the terms themselves were unfair (like sky-high arbitration costs; read more in Nolo's article Arbitration Clauses in Contracts).

 

Imagine this scenario:

Driver is given a 1,000 miles load, picks up Monday, delivers on Thursday. After delivering he picks up a 600 mile load that can't deliver until Monday. At that rate the driver will need to work 38 weeks at $600 a week to avoid the penalty clause. Over the full year the driver would make less than $34,000.

If a company thinks they need this kind of a policy maybe they'd be better off taking a good long look in the mirror. Why are they needing to hire 10 people to get three to last a year? Why are drivers leaving? How can we hire better people/prepare them better for the rigors of the job?

I expect this kind of thing from CRE, CRST, etc. I thought Roehl was better.