Lawsuit Against Swift Transportation Forced labor Minimum wageThis lawsuit is brought

I'm usually paid by the hour, but occasionally I take some relay runs which are paid by the mile as well as by the hour for all time spent on line 4. They pay the miles based on what you write in your log book.
One night I took the wrong ramp on the northeast ext. of the PA turnpike and added about 26 miles to the trip. I told them to take the miles off of my paycheck. They didn't bother, but the point is when you're being paid fairly, you're more likely to be honest with your employer.

 

The ones that I hate are the cities. Zip Code on the East Side, and deliver on the West Side. One that I used to run was Kraft. the bills showed their address as Columbus, while you actually delivered to Groveport.

 

Some reason I run into more bad then good about swift. Some of the schools I been considering say stuff like "We don't even touch them!" Haven't read whole posts yet but just what came to mind.

 

Probably because those schools' programs are not accepted by Swift. Even a company like Swift has standards.

 

As an independent contractor, it is also partly your responsibility to ensure that the company is not treating you like an employee. Sometimes you have to assert your rights as an independent contractor. For example, where I'm at, company drivers are forced dispatch. If you are given a load, you have to take it. I/C's are not forced dispatch. Just the other day, I looked at what they were trying to give me and told 'em it wasn't worth starting my truck up to do....that I'm running a business, and that business needs to be profitable. I don't work for free, which is essentially what I would have been doing had I chased a trailer to haul the loads they were wanting me to do, and then had to go retrieve my normal trailer again.

You see, the biggest problem I have with classifying an I/C as an employee is that once the courts rule that an O/O who leases his truck to the carrier is an employee and not an I/C, the carrier is now responsible for withholding taxes. Employees do not have any business expenses, so their taxes are easily withheld. I/C's, however, not so easily. Unless ALL truck and other business expenses are paid for through the carrier so that the carrier can see how much is left over for "driver salary", there is no way to accurately withhold. I try to keep as much of my earnings flowing through my own hands....I pay for my own fuel (never even accepted their fuel card). I used to make my own truck payment (paid off the bank loan last year). I pay for my own repairs. I have my own accounts at local shops. I'm trying to get to the point where I have my own tags...not quite there yet...have until the end of this month to decide if I'm going to do that this year or wait it out one more year. I still get my insurance through the carrier, but once I get my own tags, I will probably start getting quotes to see about getting it on my own. I don't want a dang thing withheld from my settlement checks....I want that money passing through my hands.

However, if some BS court decides that I am to be considered an employee, first thing that will happen is the carrier will start withholding taxes on the entire amount they pay each settlement...in other words, a HUGE chunk would immediately start being withheld and I'd have to wait until the end of the year to receive a refund on that interest-free loan to Uncle Sam.

Screw that.

I am NOT an employee, and will fight any effort to classify me as one. If you include this as part of your lawsuit, I am not going to side with you. If your lease doesn't give you the freedom you feel you ought to have as an I/C, don't sign the friggin' thing. You did read it before you signed, right? If not, it's your own danged fault....now deal with the consequences and learn from them. Don't go crying to the courts about it. If you failed to read and understand the lease, it is nobody's fault but your own.

 

I think you misunderstand the arguments in the lawsuit. They aren't trying to change the classification of O/O or L/O to employees, their argument is that Swift is qualifying them as L/O, but treating them as employees.

The gist of the argument is that the lease contract is very one-sided in favor of Swift, the company you're not even leasing your truck through. If Swift terminates your line haul contract it automatically puts you in "default" on your lease contract, regardless if you're current on your truck payments. The only good that's come out of this whole legal proceeding thus far is that these people are not being hounded many times a day with harassing collection calls from IEL and AR Systems. They ceased trying to collect lease payments when Swift was apprised that they hired an attorney.

 

Oh well, even though I struggle this is why I did this ALL on my own from word go. Bought my truck taught myself how to drive , find my own freight and if i lose out I lose. I would never have signed with some of the big car hauling companies because it was easy to see from the 100 page agreement what they were up to. I'm sure all big companies do this...why? Because people line up to sign them. I do feel for the people who feel like the were cheated but its just the same as playing nasketball ......you tell the coach "Hey I want to play ball" the second game you say "hey I want to use football rules" His response will be "That not what your contract says!"
I'm sure it a bad deal for many without even reading it but P.Bulldog is right .......y'all signed it.

 

...and if they had read the lease and understood what they were signing, they would have known it was one-sided BEFORE they put their signature on the contract. It's amazing how many legal problems could be avoided if people would just read & understand the contract before they sign their name agreeing to the terms. I have to ask, though, how many of these people now suing do you think would have still signed on the dotted line KNOWING how one-sided the lease was? I would guess probably most of them would. It really isn't any big secret how few of these lease/purchase contracts end with the driver getting title to the truck.....

 

ALthough i do not agree with this lawsuit i think there are some companies out there that will run a driver thew the ringer. With that said i think it also should fall to the driver. I worked for a company that we were independent copntractors. shortly after starting we were told that we needed to incorperate and get owr own authority. this came about because fed ex in california had done what these people at swift are doing.. They want to get paid for thier bad choices. I have seen drivers in the same company lose everything not because work wasnt there but because they were lazy. Or maybe they didnt want to work that extra day or run that last load to a customer. What ever the reason they faild while others thrived. Now i was responsible for the truck payment, maintanice and repairs. I had all the cost and knew what i was up aginst. Unfortunatly when the housing market took a dump it was hard and i lost all i worked hard for. I would never have sued them for the mess they are alleging. If you dont work you shouldnt get paid. Sorry but this is just another frivilis lawsuit..