Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation Forced labor Minimum wageThis lawsuit is brought

You've got to love these people who don't want to take responsibility for their own life decisions and then want the courts and lawyers to beat up on those whom they don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with themselves. What a bunch of losers!!!! I don't like lease purchase deals, but apparently there are many who do. A few actually manage to make them work. When anyone goes into a lease purchase they are given a contract which outlines the terms of the agreement. When you sign your name you are agreeing to the terms. Most of these leases are walk away where the driver has no further obligations. Others may not. If the driver tears up the truck or makes modifications then there could be liability. In any case, when you make an agreement you need to stick to your word. If you don't like the terms or understand what you are asked to sign, then DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT!!!!

The judge should throw this case out, period. I noticed that the lawyers pushed to make this a class action lawsuit. This is designed to make the lawyers rich, period. These lawyers expect Swift to roll over and settle this case at some point. If they prevail, then you can expect Swift to appeal this for years.

If those who participate in this lawsuit would spend as much time learning about this business and working they would not have time to file this lawsuit. I hope Swift counter sues and gets a judgment on them to reimburse them for their time, expenses and legal fees in defending this lawsuit. It is much too easy for people to file a lawsuit. Those being sued often will settle for less than it costs to defend. That only fuels more lawsuits.

 

Injun & GMAN great posts on this

 

Good posts GMAN and tech777......

I had 2 people confront me one morning 5 weeks ago, long time employees, and they told me due to being cut down to 45 hours a week (only 5 OT hours), they were looking for another job.

I simply said good for you, when you find a job paying you what I am paying you, let me know because maybe I'll leave with you!

(Funny, 5 weeks later they still come in every day, guess the job search didn't do too well!?)

 

Granted, what you say is true. Read the contract.

But, if the lawsuit was without merit, would have been dismissed long ago.

There is such a thing as an illegal contract, and for this to have reached class action status, there's some real shady stuff going on somewhere. Click the link and read the timeline if nothing else.

 

The point of the lawsuit is that these drivers and lawyers believe that Swift is breaking labor laws. None of the anti-lawsuit posts in this thread even acknowledged that. The reason there are so many trashy companies in trucking is because of the attitudes of ignorant truckers. "If you don't like it go somewhere else".

Furthermore, most of these posts say something about lease operators signing a contract, and because they signed it they should take responsibility. By that same reasoning, Swift is a US business, and should abide by all laws that pertain to them, including labor laws. When they break those laws, they should be held responsible.

 

I don't believe that they have even heard the case, yet. All they are saying is that the case may move forward. Often this is simply a procedural ruling. I am not going back and read the link right now, but as I recall, two things stick out that these people want. First, the lease operators want to be paid by the hour for all time that they spent with Swift as "independent contractors." Second, they want compensation for actual miles rather than the way Swift pays. I don't know how Swift calculates miles, but it may be household goods. There may be more, but those are a couple of things that I recall off the top of my head. In either case, the case should be kicked out and the lawyers for the plaintiff's and those in the lawsuit should be charge back for the costs of Swift's defense.

 

Truckers are exempt for the labor laws and have been for more than half a century. These lease operators are independent contractors, not employees. That is what they wanted when they signed their contracts with Swift. They didn't have to sign the contract. They could have worked as company drivers. They chose to be independent with the thought of becoming an owner operator, which is an independent businessman. I don't see where Swift broke any laws in what I read about the lawsuit.

 

You forgot selling you a truck, then firing you so that you can't possibly make the payments. And the contract says you can't take the truck elsewhere.

In short, they get your labor for awhile, and then they get their truck back.

Rinse and repeat with the next sucker. Nice little racket.

 

Everything is spelled out in the contract. If you make an agreement then you should be prepared to live by the terms. If you can't live with the terms then walk away. I don't think than Swift held a gun to the head of any of those involved in the lawsuit. Technically, these lease operators were not fired, since they were not legally employees. There contracts were canceled, either by Swift or by the lease operators. Even if these lease operators actually owned their trucks, their contract could be canceled at any time. Most lease agreements are "at will." The owner operator or carrier can cancel the agreement "at will" or for any reason or no reason. These lease operators apparently did not have any business sense. They could not operate their business and now want Swift to compensate them for their failure.

 

You clearly didn't read anything about the suit. Educate yourself before you waste more time on your uninformed posts.