Shady new policy

im in my 50s dude......if a comp is treating me like crap..cya......

 

Reading the quote of MJE, I have to warn a bunch of you about this.

OK here is the thing, it isn't legal using those quoted passage from MJE.

The reason why is this -

the company has an responsibility, both by regulation and by state/federal law to maintain those vehicles to the extent that they are safe and road worthy. Inspections are part of the system to ensure that they are safe and road worthy.

IF at any time the company ignores the operator's request for repair or maintenance, they are at fault. The driver, who is a "sanctioned inspector" (lack of a better term) to judge the immediate condition of that vehicle - in other words sanctioned meaning the driver passed the state requirements for a CDL and is charged with the responsibility of that vehicle while on the road - can at any time tell the company this or that needs to be repaired while at the same time ANY issues with an inspection can not be faulted to the driver on any level and any pay or fine or punishment for a failed inspection can't be levied on the driver. Doesn't matter if the driver report something or not, it can not be legally done.

I know of one driver who went though this. He sued and recovered three years of fines and punitive damages. The state investigated the company, they tried to hide it all by going out of business but the state went after the owners and everyone got their money.

 

You leave out that the driver has the immediate responsibility to not pull it, if the company threatens him, and he has it documented, then the company doesn't have a leg to stand on. BUT, this opens a can of worms also. BUT, if the driver does pull it, then DOT is going to immediately open a can of whoop ### on him during an inspection, which is going to come back on the company. So, the driver is in a catch 22.

That said, there is another part of it, who defines what is or isn't road worthy. A DOT inspector on the side of the road has a different definition of what is road worthy, than you or I as the driver, or a company, or the person paying the bills for the repair.

But, we have this discussion all the time, and people will never agree on it. Personally, I'm fine was a company charging drivers for damage they cause. If it's something beyond the drivers control, then, we have a different discussion, and one that would have to be settled in court. Your example cited is a rarity, in 99% of cases, the courts will side with the employer, even if the employer is at fault. Personally, as others have recommended to the OP, I would be looking for another job.

 

Looks like you gotta be on your toes. Dot the i's cross your t's. Your company is actually forcing you to do your job now.

 

I some what disagree, what I mean as road worthy is documented in the regulations and is easy to figure out. Bad tires with cords showing is one such issue, the same goes for a worn out tire with tread under the limits. The even a fan belt that is frayed and cracking is also specific to road worthy as is an alternator which is not working or lights that are required to be functioning.

I can give a lot of examples that are ignored by companies and every day if I get a new truck, I will document defects and if I feel it needs fixing, demand it is or I won't drive it. I may be in a unique position because my company backs me up with customers who are cheap but they pay a premium to get a driver who can and will drive it safely for them to get their products moved.

The interpretation in a road side inspection can be an issue but nevertheless if there is most of the truck in good shaped a lot is overlooked, but if not they nitpick like the number of bulbs in a unit that needs to be functioning, I had been cited for a three bulb marker having two bulbs working so I get that part.

However there is no catch22 for the driver outside of the citation to their record, many times the fines are levied to the company and they are the ones who have it effect their safety rating.

 

I used the voluntary DOT check on a company and got things fixed.

I would refuse to drive something unsafe and let them fire me. then let the fun begin.

 

"Unsafe" is a very wide-open term that has a thousand different definitions among a thousand different drivers. I understand the FMCSA manual is very explicit [for the most part] about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of operational safety. And, I don't think the issue that would be the most problematic in regards to this post subject will be the "obvious" issues.

It's the subjective things that are going to be the problem, and there are many examples of subjective issues that come up regularly among drivers and shop personnel and shop supervisors.

You have one issue, and get prognosis from the driver, the mechanic and the shop supervisor, you will likely get 3 different orders of priority of the issue. So, to me the subject here is not about the black and the white issues, but rather all of the grey issues in between ... of which we can discuss into eternity and still never get anywhere and this is where someone at the carrier is going to end up playing arbiter on issues that come up both proactively and reactively (driver maintenance requests and CMV fines and fix-it tickets)

A lot of what can be found wrong on a truck CAN ONLY be discovered with the aid of a creeper, an assistant in the cab, and very detailed "training". And let's be honest, how many of you drivers get on your back, under the truck, in the snow and mud, to perform a thorough inspection each and every day? My point is, a carrier that implements such a policy is merely trying to minimize fines and encourage drivers to be more thorough in their PTI's, and to have a path to recover costs in the event of a fine. But understand that you can not assign a cost to the degradation of a CSA score of a carrier. This cost is immeasurable. But, it's a subjective and fickle aspect of the business that is always going to be there, no matter.

 

Best policy is if theres something wrong with the truck, dont drive it. Thats the way I always handled it. If I knew there was something wrong with one, theyd fix it before I drove it. Made a lot of people mad but better them be mad than me or somebody else be dead. I tried to tell my brother in law that but he said they were the boss and he had to do what they said. That decision cost him his life in 96 at 40 years old. He left 5 small kids without a daddy.

 

Simple answer... HELL NO!
CSA was created to punish not only the driver but the company. They cannot recoup the cost by fining the driver. It'll never stand up in court.