Keller Trucking

Keller isn't a bad company per se. But I'd heard numerous complaints against the person in charge of safety there. We agreed that I could quit without prejudice, and then she went against her word and put disparaging information on my DAC. Furthermore, I quit without giving a reason—and she/they made up a reason for me—and put it on the DAC (a lie).
Her reason for disliking me seemed valid since I took too long to take care of an accident. I understand that, but I also understand that the entire situation of my employment would have rested on Keller refusing me the agreed upon tuition reimbursement shortly after I did my agreed upon 6 months, as well as finding a way out of paying unemployment insurance. I now realize my instincts were sound; they would have refused to pay the agreed TA amount simply based on my not working there any more rather than pay it after I left—even if I did barely meet the 6 month requirement shortly before I would have left. Sometimes you just have to be dishonest around crooked people or they'll use your honesty against you. Coincidentally, I had quit my previous (non-driving) employer with them still owing me 6 weeks of unpaid wages, and they assumed my quitting absolved them of ever paying it at all—just like Keller would have. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I do think they try too hard to get and keep a good reputation, using methods that aren't fair to other trucking companies they compete with, to maintain themselves on the 20 best carriers list and to recruit drivers. I never felt comfortable saying anything bad about them online or in a review, and I note patterns in forums discussing them, that I won't mention here, that suggest suppression of complaints as well. I can't prove that they use "reputation defenders", but that sort of thing would be right down their alley. They aren't bad, grading on a curve, but they are overrated. Also, beware the corporate "social credit system" which pay-discriminates against people who don't allow the company to monitor and judge the charitable or altruistic things you do on your off-time.

 

I wouldn't generalize for every person in the company. There are good people, bad people, and so-so people. The safety department, however, has a lot of control over a person's DAC and future. If they informally abuse a verbal agreement, I can also informally respond. Honesty in dealing with people is keeping your word and using common sense when doing so. Posting a DAC report that reveals that you would not re-hire someone is not necessary; just don't rehire them. As for having reason for leaving, this is industry nonsense and backwards logic popularly promoted by dishonest corporations. Nobody needs a reason to quit a job. People need a reason to continue going to one, and if that reason runs out, or becomes obsolete, they won't go to it any more. This doesn't mean they're dissatisfied; it means that they'd be more satisfied elsewhere (for example, doing hobbies because they actually know how to manage money). It's quitting without prejudice, or "no contest". I do feel that this company, as well as most employers, cannot stand the idea that a person can be neutral—or neither a cheat nor stellar. Every employee has to be either really good, or really bad, and most (but not all) that quit are going to be pushed into the "really bad" employee extreme—because who in their right mind would want to quit such a lovely place yada yada.

 

This post is here for information. Everything in it mentioned assertively is true. Everything that is subjective is said to be of my opinion. If someone replies defensively and attempts to make an ad-hominem attack out of it, then that would be the manner of corporate apologists and trolls. We all know that from an internet being around for years and seeing these sorts of replies. If someone says they can't handle my writing style, nobody is forcing them to read it, and they have no right to tell other people what to read. They can just leave. It's this kind of controlling behavior that makes trucking jobs more like serfdom than agreements between two parties.

I can include details in order to help a person genuinely interested in my situation so that they better know what they're talking about. If, for example, I say that I met the 6 month threshold, and then they reply saying that I didn't, then both I, and any other participant in this thread need to know their source, in order to verify that they are neither a corporate apologist, nor a troll. It's no surprise someone with that lack of reading comprehension ability can't handle more than a few sentences.