Can't Sleep Here!

i didn't bother to copy your entire posting as it would serve no purpose for my response to you. you can have all the recording devices you want (you mentioned that you did), you can explain all you want to the local police (which you said you did), you can tell the shipper or reciever your hours of service rules (which you did), but in the end, you still gotta get off the property, so what good did it actually do you to do all of that...??

nothing, not a blessed darn thing did it accomplish. as i stated in my posting above, as a driver myself, now a yardman, i truely felt badly for the driver i had to tell to get off the property even though he was told it was a 24/7 operation, (which it absolutey isn't). i wish i could have "hidden him" in a back corner so he could get some sleep. but, the neighbors would have called the police, and reported it.

so why should i risk getting myself into trouble for anyone...?? why should i risk my employer to get his butt chewed out from the customer, when the customer reports my actions to my employer...??

in the end, as a driver, you just gotta follow the rules.....of the CUSTOMER.......PERIOD........or risk losing future work from them. then, your employer would have every reason to fire you, as the customer would definately call your employer and report you...........

afterall, you are the first and perhaps the only representative a customer actually see's in person, as everyone else from your company probably just phones the customer for work, etc.

the best thing anyone can do is simply get off the property, comply with THE CUSTOMER, as no one really knows all the reasons why you can't stay on the property, and frankly, we are drivers, not the CEO or some other "important person" that needs a reason............you do as you are TOLD........

and voice recording machines, talking with an officer, asking for a "signature", etc,etc, is all wasted time you'll never, ever get back.......

 

Considering had it not been for the voice recording, his company would have probably written him up. IMO was worth the wasted time.

 

maybe for that one time, but he did go on to say that the company (his) backed off from anymore violations. my response was to just remind him to comply with the customers, as we all know, the customers really don't give a crap about hours of service, etc, etc. they just want their stuff either picked up or delivered. our problems as drivers are our problems, not theirs...........

the police will enforce the "get off the property" requests from the customers, afterall, they own the property, or rent it, or lease it, and pay hefty taxes...........not the drivers who just go there to do the job, and then leave.

and besides, the "write-ups" are a joke, you should know that. it only covers the company if a DOT audit happens. it will never prevent a driver from getting another job.......

 

Pro:

I disagree with you sir. But first let me qualify something: I do not expect an employee of any customer to put his job on the line for me by allowing me to park on their property if the customer specifies a no parking policy--even if I'd been given the understanding from a third party that parking were available.

As to your point of being TOLD to do something, I have been TOLD by EVERY SINGLE safety department of EVERY one of the few companies I have worked with over the years to comply fully with the FMCSR regulations, especially the hours of service. Yes, there have been some wink-and-nod situations over the years. Any driver who indicates otherwise must not know the difference in transferring responsibility via the wink-and-nod. In the end, had I been involved in an accident during the 45 minutes I had to use to get to the nearest safe parking location whom, sir, do you think would have borne the responsibility? By telling me forthrightly to comply but never directly contra-indicating that I should bend the rules now and then the carrier gives themselves almost complete deniability should an accident occur. At least they can use it as a terminable occurence if they so choose because I "chose" not to comply fully with the HOS. By recording conversations and bringing the carrier into it the responsibilities (should something happen) are reverted back to the places they should be in the first place--and mind you I'm not trying to deny my culpability here either--but a carrier should not be able to lay compliance off in this manner on a person who is trying to make an honest living. Carriers, in my opinion, have been given free reign enough with the wink-and-nod scenario for too long and have come to "understand" that more can be added for less pay and responsibility on their part. Take for instance in the refrigerated segment the issues of palletized loads and cargo break-down to ti x hi requirements. Carriers competed for business to the tune of pennies and found themselves agreeing to pay for pallets on which cargo is shipped then transferring that responsibility to drivers to maintain pallet ranks on their trailers--some of which even charged drivers for the return of less-than-acceptable pallets in an exchange. I had this contract battle with a carrier in the 1990's when I owned my two trucks.

Next is the driver unload situation. We, as drivers, fight weather, traffic, ill-tempered motorists, excessive enforcement tactics, and a plethora of other counter-productive issues on a daily basis which eats up our alotted hours minute-by-minute and second-by-second. Statistically we all have 168 hours in a week. We drivers can work 70 of those hours. The average American employee works a 40 hour week and is compensated additionally for "overtime." Overtime for a trucker, it would seem to me, has come to represent all the extra hours we "donate" to shippers and receivers who deliberately delay us unnecessarily. We "donate" more hours to "fixing" our logs when we're out of hours (previously on 10/15/70 or currently on 11/14/70 if your company operates on these standards) from those delays or traffic tie ups or what have you. We "donate" more hours loading, counting, sorting, segregating, restacking, palletizing, and lumping freight. Most of those hours are uncompensated (although some changes are in the wind). But we, collectively the drivers of this country, allowed this behavior to progress by not taking the stand we should have taken years ago--and I do not refer to unionization as a solution to the situation. We should have simply said "No! I'm not working extra hours for no compensation." Had WE collectively taken that stand things would have changed--and quickly.

When we don't stand up for ourselves no one will and we will get railroaded into breaking laws. I for one just got tired of having carriers lay off their responsibilities on me. I'm culpable enough behind the wheel without assuming more than my share. Plus I found myself becoming a better person when I was able to sleep rather than trying to figure out how to blow out my brains to deliver a load on time.

I took the stand. I now run legal and expect my carrier to back me 100 percent of the time IF AND ONLY IF I AM RIGHT and can prove my position.

I once read an account of a hotel owner back in the 1960's in Florida who had some problems with certain members of a very professional organization. It seems the members of this organization were frequent customers of this establishment and at times they would get quite wild, throwing raucous parties and harrassing the hotel staff. The owner of this hotel, it was reported, told these individuals' superiors something to the effect of your people will act appropriately while in my hotel and they will not belittle my staff or your people will no longer stay with us. He closed with (and I paraphrase) 'I can get more customers but good help is hard to come by.' Aren't we experiencing a similar situation in trucking: it's easy to get a driver but getting a really good, effective driver is very hard for every carrier. By the way, those members of that very professional orgization eventually accomplished great things including landing the first human being on the surface of the moon--as well as going on to other distinguished careers.

 

now, you force me to quote you story bit by bit.
i'm glad you understand an employee's stand in telling you to get off the property, even 'third party" such as i am.

ain't we all been there, done that...?? nothing new, i ain't no newbie, you don't have to exasperate this to me..........its rhetoric.

it is "funny" though, how we "bend the rules" to favor ourselves, like for instance, if you were only 45 minutes from home, but you know darn well you'd be out of hours and violation if you continue, we/you would still continue as we want to get home, don't lie to me here about this.........
but, if the company wants you/us to do them a favor, we say, "sorry, the HOS rules apply, i can't do that"......again, you can't deny this "double standard...........

first, you wasn't in any accident, so you can't possibly ask who would have been at fault, as you know with-out asking, you would have been at fault, again, rhetoric........

they cannot tell you "forthrightly" to bend the rules, you know that, again, rhetoric.........

by recording ANY CONVERSATION you have displayed a lack of trust in your company. they will now feel (and suspect) that you will record any conversations with any company representative as well. did you tell the person (anyone you recorded) that you were indeed recording ANY CONVERSATION......?? that's a violation, and probably wouldn't stand up in court.

nothing new here, again, rhetoric.........

why bring up this subject of reefer loads, we ain't talking about this, you're getting off the current subject matter.

so what, don't like it, get out of the business, this is normal day to day happenings, again, rhetoric.........

again, so what.....?? this is the occupation many of us have choosen. you don't need to stay in it and rant and rave about the hours and the money....again, rhetoric.......

simply put, go work for a union company, get paid for all your time...........again, more rhetoric.......

there are ways to stand up for ourselves, again, you are just blowing rhetoric verbage over and over...........

IF AND ONLY IF YOU ARE RIGHT...??? this means you're wrong most of the time then.........??? meaning, you don't think straight.....???

this "hotel" thing serves no purpose...........you lost your argument about anything else when you brought in the "reefer" thing now this "hotel" thing......stick to the subject matter you origianlly posted........

 

Dont forget the piss bottels and dog do do.

 

Pro:

Everything is merely rhetoric. Politics, religion, even my ex-in-laws.

I think you may have missed my point. Basically it's become beholden upon us as "professionals" to protect ourselves from the onslaught of radical law enforcement and ethics-less business operations by those means we have available to us. Some trucking groups are even advocating installation of devices to record video from the tractor's dashboard--similar to the camera systems installed in many police cruisers though maybe less technical. Call it CYA-ism and in case you haven't noticed it is, sadly, invading every aspect of modern life. My second corollary point was that we, drivers, have to actively take a stand for ourselves in every aspect of the job. When we collectively stand for our rights we will prevail.

Perhaps my company doesn't fully trust me in certain circumstances, but they absolutely know in any event I will be covered from head to toe with information to support my position but I can assure you that whenever a driver runs into a situation with damaged cargo or some other such thing they openly acknowledge my dedication to other drivers in the fleet. Additionally, I'm one of the first in the fleet to be offered new tractors as they trade out as they know very well that I take explicit care of their trucks--for which I've earned the trust and respect of every mechanic in our shop. This company does not often lie to me as they have been apt to attempt in the past and still do to many guys (one of the major problems with this carrier). I make no secret in actively defending both my job, my CDL, my career, and my carrier when necessary (and I've been commended for shooting down an insurance claim caused by a motorist who drove into my steer tire while my truck was centered in my lane by one former employer).

As for my being wrong, I only actively take an immoveable stand when I'm right. When I'm wrong I am always willing to admit my mistakes. I've openly said as much in other posts on this forum and my company also knows this as well.

Regarding your comment about "going home" even when out of hours. I'll have you know that I've had to sit in Pax, WV, due to being out of hours. I live 60 minutes away. Call me foolish if you like but you cannot call me a hippocrit when it comes to compliance--and my company knows this about me. I will not take a stand against a customer on a schedule and then break the regs to get home. That, sir, is unethical behavior and I'll have no part of it.

Finally, as to the example of the hotel owner, my point here is that companies filter drivers through their ranks at turnover in the 100-plus percentages industry wide. If more carriers spent more time telling customers the same thing that hotel owner did turnover trend lines in spreadsheets in every segment of the industry would trend downward and quickly. Hire dregs from the bottom of the barrel and your company will pay the price in damaged equipment, seriously angered customers due to late deliveries for less-than-acceptable reasons, and turnover in the hundreds of percentages. Hire quality drivers and pay the quality wages and they'll deliver quality performance and service.

 

no, to shut down an engine entirely or even in the "limp-in-mode" would be dangerous. its best not to have it do this at all, but maybe a constant annoying beeping noise you can't shut off, i'd go for......

no, again, its not going to happen. if you're not allowed to stay on the property, i'd suspect a big tow truck to come along. as the driver, you would accept the responsibility of your time, not the shipper nor the reciever........

no again. fleets, and the DOT would always suspect a driver "monkied around" with the devices. (as far as the law is concerned).

the compensation will always be regulated to meet the carriers financial end, not the drivers. drivers are a "dime a dozen" in the eyes of any trucking comapny, they will find drivers, even if those drivers speak spanish...........