Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation Forced labor Minimum wageThis lawsuit is brought

10% I don't care about all that much.

When it gets to 20% or higher, I care. And if it gets to that point I will complain to my DM, and usually get some paid miles added.

MT miles can often be way so far off, sometimes 50%.

And sometimes it is my own fault when the MT miles are so far off.
As in, I drove to a truck stop for the night - but it was 20 miles in the wrong direction to my next load, and the MT miles are calculated from my last drop point.


But over the past few months I have noticed that the paid miles are getting a bit closer to the actual miles driven.

I have also noticed that the 'shortest route' (that is the paid miles) may not actually be the fastest and most fuel efficient route in actual miles.

I would much rather drive mainly interstates, if it is faster, than wading through towns and traffic lights and low speed limits on a shorter route via state and county roads - even if it adds an additional 10-15% of distance.

 

As I recall, the hhg deal was a federal government scheme. You can thank the early household movers for that type of pay. As I understand it, the bed buggers would drive extra miles once they got to their destination in order to pad their line haul rate, since they were being paid mileage. Once the feds got involved they had to go by what became known as hhg miles which is also called short miles.

 

G/Man, as I pointed out to Oor, you, too, have apparently not read the Swift lease.

Lease operators are not prohibited from taking the truck to another carrier. That doesn't mean it's easy to do. However, as long as payments are current and proof that insurance is being paid is kept current, the contract states the truck may be taken out of Swift's fleet before the terms of the lease are completed.

 

I may get a lot of grief by confessing that I am as liberal as they get and believe that most big INDUSTRIES need to be regulated or a good % of their companies do the wrong thing most of the time and seldom what is good for the common good...
That being said, this lawsuit is nonsense because it is not like Swift was MAKING someone sign the lease in order to GET the job, or implied or promised more miles for signing the lease and then reneged, or threatened to fire someone unless they got a lease... The deal was: lease = more cents per mile and more say so -- you cover the costs of everything and blah, blah, blah... Is it a terrible deal? Is it a good deal? Whoever cannot answer that question to their satisfaction is not ready to lease a truck. Trucking is complex...a lot of variable costs (in a bad way), gambling that everything is going to be all fine without having a plan and a discipline and know how is a choice.
Too bad this got to the point it hit the courts (not very clear where it is though), because whoever pays for this, the costs will be passed down to... Well, the lawyers and the owners are NOT going to be the ones paying for it.

 

Oh I agree with you,what my point is,why doesnt everybody just use actual miles? That way everbody knows their true cost.Its an out of date system, that needs to be changed.When mega company x pays .30 to a company driver and all the sudden co. x has to pay actual miles he drops his pay rate to .25 and a good percentage of drivers quit.Say 15% quit, well now he has to replace those drivers on top of his 125% regular turnover rate.Pretty soon he has to raise the rate to attract drivers and the driver has actually benifited from this.In the long run freight rates would rise,because trucking co's would be forced to raise their rates.Again why do they use so many different calculations,hhg,short,practical?The truth will set you free! (but most co's and corp's dont like the truth one little bit)

 

Came to me last night why I hated prepayment penalties, been awhile since I've been in the game. As you say, all things being equal, the banker gets his pound of flesh. However, all things are not always equal.

It's called redemption risk, and the banker has hedged his bet with a prepay penalty. Makes it much tougher for you to save any money by refinancing, which is the whole point.

No prepay penalty, the cards are on your side of the table, go find a lower rate if you can or pay off the loan early and get out of paying some interest. Almost always a good idea.

You can screw a banker from time to time, it's just very difficult.

 

You are correct, and it seems I'm also guilty of only getting one side of the story here, the Plaintiffs.

My apologies.

 

One of the reasons "short miles" or "zip code to zip code" miles are used is, it is too easy for drivers to "cheat" actual (practical) miles by running out of route or choosing the long way. If a company goes to paying odometer miles, you will see far more restrictions placed on drivers. No more side trips to WalMart, dropping down to the next highway to see Aunt Millie or going to your favorite truck stop rather than simply settling for what's on your exact route. No more dodging tolls or scales. If you get lost, the company doesn't want to pay for that.

Paying HHG miles, as is spelled out during orientation, so it's no surprise, allows for things like this. "This is what the load pays. Take it or don't."

Now. In Swift's case, if you run the mileage on your map program or add it up the old fashioned way from the atlas and the mileage comes up as more than a 10% discrepancy, often, you can tell your DM and you can get paid for some of those extra miles.

On this load, I am being paid an extra 90 miles to go a different route than the one the computer chose for me. My discrepancy percent while OTR was less than 6%. I rarely had to call out the route mileage and that was usually on shorter runs. I think in the year I was back as OTR, I had the route mileage adjusted twice.

 

They's also adjust for going out of route to scale. That is the majority of my route adjustments. Others have been where the milage is based on routes where trucks are not permitted.

I can generally get the route down to within 1% to 2% or less, which is what the HHG route would be, but is generally not the fuel route. I then make my own decision as to what route is the most benificial/ecnomical in terms of fuel, wear, weather and time ... you know just like running your own business.

 

The only thing "incorrect" in Injun's statement is the spelling of "not"...otherwise, it is at worst incomplete in explanation!

At Swift....please note I am being specific to Swift and not embracing a comparison of other carriers or their practices...At Swift, the pre-employment screening does include a credit history, for the reasons you (rookietrucker) stated. This check is done for all prospective employees/contractors, not specific to either group.

To become a "Lease Operator" with Swift, you must first be an "employee", a "company driver"...while I was with Swift, the minimum was 9 months. The reason for this "qualifying time" was for Swift and IEL to determine if I, as a company driver, proved that I was capable of running the "minimum miles necessary" to be "successful" as a L/O. Or, to put it bluntly that I wasn't lazy and destined to fail. A driver needed to show a regular average of 2800-3200 miles each week (time of year and freight volume was also included in this average). Certain "Dedicated Accounts" did not allow for L/O as Swift and IEL knew the miles would not be available to make a lease "profitable" for the lessee. [which is exactly my question as to this lawsuit and who the original complainant was and the Port fleet he was on...did not offer enough regular miles to be successful]

Swift does not do a "credit history report" on anyone applying to become a L/O with Swift. The vetting process is achieved by their "employment history" (or their average miles driven per week) as a Swift Company Driver. You do not walk in the door at Swift and sign a lease for a tractor...you must qualify as a company driver first. You can "lease onto" Swift as an O/O without being a company driver first...the risk is all yours, not Swifts!