Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation Forced labor Minimum wageThis lawsuit is brought

If you look at the suit, taxes were mentioned as something they want to collect from Swift. About the only taxes that I can think of that they would want to collect would likely be payroll and income taxes. The only way they would be able to collect employment taxes is if they were successful in having these lease operators classified as employees rather than independent contractors. If they can have the lease operators classified as employees then they could collect all payments, insurance and other expenses that they paid during the lease. It isn't ignorance, but being able to read, unless of course, you can think of other taxes that these lease operators would want to collect from Swift.

 

If you agree to be paid as an independent contractor, whether as a driver, lease operator or owner operator, then you need to abide by your agreement. It doesn't make any difference what the IRS guidelines state. If you agree to the terms of a contract, then keep your word. If you don't understand a contract, then don't sign it. If you are not allowed to show a contract to a lawyer before signing, then don't sign it. I won't sign any contract that I don't agree with the terms or if I can't have my lawyer look it over. If you sign a contract and then decide later that you don't like the terms, then you have noone to blame but yourself. I don't have to read a contract to know that if you don't agree with the terms or understand what you are signing, then you don't sign it. These people read and supposedly understood what they were signing. At least that is the agreement that they signed. Once they found that they didn't like the terms or that they may not have been cut out for running a business, then they tucked their tail between their legs and ran the the nearest lawyer to have them beat up on Swift. These former lease operators want to change the relationship between the carrier and lease operators where they are paid an hourly wage. According to what I read, that is also part of this lawsuit. This industry is exempt from the labor laws. These people need to suck it up and go on with their lives.

 

And if you do anyway, accept the responsibility.

 

If anyone is thinking about doing a lease purchase OOIDA will look over your contract before you sign, if you are a member. You may even be able to call them and ask about a particular carrier and their lease purchase programs. I am sure that they have a rather extensive list of carriers that have done them.

 

Breach of contract is not exclusive to the one who agreed to their terms. It's a two-way street. "Their terms" implies that they are just as obligated to those terms as the other. We don't know what transpired for these drivers which led to Swift terminating their contracts. Having walked a mile in similar shoes, I would be interested to hear ALL the facts of the case before I make a judgment either way.

 

Agreed. 100%.

 

Try telling that to the IRS!

 

I believe the definition of a "fool" is relative. Fools come in all shapes and sizes. You have one type of "fool" who signs a contract that they might not fully understand, and ends up living with the consequences of that action, which they do. Then you have another kind of fool who, having full knowledge of the amount of money they have invested in their rig, and know full well about the leasing company's liability in the product they're hauling, take it out and see how fast she can go on the open highway, going over 100mph for stretches........just for ##### and giggles. That's why I say the definition of "fool" is relative.

Now I'm confused, I thought you just said that the company you're leased to has a certain amount of liability $$ with you?

A L/O has a vested interest in his rig also. If you go into the business relationship with the knowledge that it's a lease purchase, how can you say they can just "walk away"? That lease purchase means the party knows from the start of that relationship that at the end of the lease he's going to buy it outright, and it's that implied promise that all the money he's worked hard for and paid into the lease is going toward the purchase of the equipment. It's arrogant to think that a L/O can just walk away with no financial loss.

True.

It's a gamble when anyone decides to go into business for themselves. There's no guarantees anyone will be successful either, but it does speak to the character of someone willing to improve their lot in life. You did. Are you playing a fool's game too?