Swift Beats Greatwide for the Walmart account

Nah Swift can fire anyone anywhere at anytime, at will. Sign here.

 

And yet, Swift gave you a chance to start your trucking career over again. They didn't have to do that. Seems you're doing quite well, now. Thanks to Swift.

Really bites, doesn't it?

 

I don't have a 401K. I have an IRA. Doing very well, thank you for asking.

My medical is covered under a HSA. My choice. I suppose I could get in on a group plan through one of the trucker's or small business organizations and pay $400/month...but I don't spend that much on doctors anyway, even out of pocket.

As far as major medical, I carry an indemnity policy. Again, my choice.

Now, if you want to know about personal savings, that's doing very well, too. Exact figures are none of your business.

This month wasn't the greatest, only because I've been fighting with a poorly managed International shop. But, I have money set aside for contingencies like this. I will be just fine.


And I am not constrained in my choices of health coverage or retirement savings/investment plans by whatever the company offers.

For the record, 401K is only offered to employees of the company. I am not an employee.

I'm probably not the best example you can use to show how Swift screws everybody. Better find some sad-sack who doesn't know how to run a business.

 

True, 401K is only offered to employees. However, what is misleading is your statement about not being an employee. Yes, you are a L/O, which means you are renting one of Swift's trucks, which is leased by the company they lease the truck from. One question, if Swift is leasing the truck you're leasing, why does Swift claim that truck is their property at all times in the contract? If they don't own it either, it would be logical to say that neither of you are the owner of said property, but yet they claim to be the owner. Question #2, if you aren't an "employee", and Swift states on their website that you are a "business partner" (lmao), wouldn't you think that contract would be a 50/50 proposition? And if you do think so, why is the contract always weighed heavily in their favor? The only thing listed that's even close to this is where you or the company can cancel the contract at any time for any reason. However, the L/O has much to lose if that's the case. One reason being you, the lease operator, are still held liable for the remaining lease payments without the luxury of having said truck because if you cancel the line-haul contract with Swift, it automatically puts you in default with the lease contract. Although I've heard through the legal grapevine that they aren't going after defaulted leases as aggressively as they have in the past.

If you aren't an employee with Swift, how can it be that they can cancel the contract for any reason or no reason at all? This means they can terminate the contract if you disagree with them, don't operate your business the way they see fit (which also changes over time without an addendum to the contract), and/or interpret/fabricate their own policies to their own end, which will enrich them, but not you necessarily. Aren't you supposed to be a "business partner"? How many businesses treat their partners this way? "Partner" would imply some sort of investment on your part and/or an agreement that benefits both parties. What benefit is there for the one who is doing their level best to operate their business efficiently, productively (for them and the company; lease operators make the company lots of money, thereby increasing their profit margin), when all the company has to do is say they don't like you anymore and with a stroke of a key, they have reduced you from business partner to company grunt?

I'm the wife of a "sad-sack" who put in many years for this company to find out in the end that he, though he thought he was a business partner, found out he was just an employee when they kicked him to the curb. Can you tell me why if the lease is through IEL, and the line-haul contract is through Swift Transportation, that if Swift cancels your line-haul contract it automatically puts you in default on your lease contract, even if you aren't legally/monetarily in default? You're not an employee of Swift, so what has Swift got to do with IEL? I mean besides the fact that Jerry owns IEL? I'll tell you, because you are at all times considered an employee even if you're a L/O, else Swift wouldn't be able to put you in default if they canceled your line-haul contract. You'd be able to enter into a line-haul contract with another carrier and continue the lease.

P.S. My husband ran his business very efficiently.

 

Does WERNER have any Dedicated accounts with WAL-Mart?

 

Um this is a Swift tread...

And to answer your question,I think they don't but not sure.

 

Mrs. Otter: The Insignificant Otter had issues going on other than how he ran his business. Hence, your lawsuit under OSHA regulations. I am not going too get into a debate with you over contracts and the fairness thereof. Even you have to admit the payoff was there. You have said yourself that you "got used to the money."

I respect you too much to enter into a spitting contest with you. I will only repeat that I am currently happy with the agreement I have with Swift and with IEL. That does not mean I will maintain this position throughout the contract. As with all things, my prerogative is subject to change.