But...Swift HATES Drivers, Right?

[Injun]

Message on my QC this morning regarding the collision of two storms expected to hit New England tonight: (excerpts)

"...expected to produce record amounts of snow and severe weather all the way from Pennsylvania through Maine..."

"....driving into these areas today should be okay, but moving around in them or getting out after tonight will be extremely hazardous if not impossible..."

"We don't want any drivers stranded out in this storm..."

"Make sure we communicate with every driver who is either in or heading toward this area.....If they cannot complete their run and get to a safe place by the end of the day today, they need to stop before they go into the area."

"Making service on our loads is extremely important, but not as important as the lives of our drivers..."

"Airlines are already cancelling flights....They lose a lot of money and make a lot of people mad, but they do it because of the extreme safety risks..."

"WE MUST TAKE THE SAME APPROACH."




*waits for the trolls to find fault with this fleetwide message from Swift*

 

[Injun]

....or maybe they learned from that experience and chose to avoid the mistake moving forward.

 

[killroy]

Na don't buy it. If you want I will PM you the latest they have done, it required a Haz mat clean up team and a trip to the ER for her on a load that was Haz mat ( she is not ) no placards no MSDS. Needless to say the folks in Phoenix were having a Cow. After I knew she was okay I almost wet myself from laughing. When ever I need a good laugh I call her and ask " how's it going " but I have to admit I have respect for you an her, me I would not put up with their crap for 10 mins. But it is endless entertainment for me. And no I'm not a troll, just an O/O for 30 years. And for the life of me I can't see how they stay in business. I wish I had some friends that worked for some of the other so called major carriers, but then I'd never get any work done from laughing at the crazy stuff they do.

 

[blsqueak]

I remember hurrican Issac and had to shut down just before it hit land fall, and received three phone call from my terminal, TM, Safety and DM, all asking to make sure that I was parked safely, then shut down during that snow storm that hit IOWA a few months back, and not a word said. They just changed the appt. Received a msg from the safety director, and was told that our customers are a lot more forgiving when they are told that their load is going to be late due to weather then to get a phone call and say that they are not going to get it because it is all over the road

 

[RACEFAN]

...... the latest THEY have done, it required a Haz mat clean up team and a trip to the ER for her on a load that was Haz mat ( she is not ) no placards no MSDS. Needless to say the folks in Phoenix were having a Cow.

What "they" have done??????

If your friend doesn't have Hazmat endorsement, then WTF is she doin pullin a Hazmat load?

Her fault!


Cleanup and trip to ER?

She f***ed up and had an "accident".

Again.....HER FAULT!

Swift has a strict policy, that before leaving a shipper with Hazmat, driver is to call Swift Hazmat/Safety dept to verify proper documents, endorsements and procedures before hauling Hazmat.
Your friend obviously failed on multiple counts.

No wonder Phoenix "had a cow".

 

[Injun]

Not all loads most would consider "hazmat" are placarded loads requiring an endorsement on the license.

Example: Johnson Controls in Canby, OR.

They make car batteries and ship the battery cases and chemicals in separate containers within the same load. There will be upward of 10K pounds of chemical, but due to a special agreement with DOT, the SHIPPER is not required to placard the load. They give the driver a letter of exemption with the bills and send it down the road.

This has NOTHING to do with Swift.

If there is a crash with spill, a hazmat team will be necessary to clean it up.

Liquid plastics in totes do not require placards, yet require a hazmat team to clean up.

A crash involving diesel spillage from the tractor's own supply tanks will require the response of a hazmat team, yet most drivers do not carry a hazmat endorsement.

Mixed loads that have less than reportable quantities of any single substance or items labeled "user quantities," "consumer packaging" or some such are not placarded and may be hauled by non-endorsed drivers.

None of this has a single thing to do with Swift. DOT, FMCSA and other agencies make the rules. Swift trains ALL drivers to recognize placardable loads and what to do when faced with one, whether the driver is endorsed or not. Instructions to the non-endorsed drivers are these: Do not hook to the trailer. Call dispatch. If that person tries to get you to run it, call Safety immediately.

Reading a set of hazmat bills is not that complicated.

And I'm trying to figure out how Swift caused the accident and how the simple fact of the load containing hazardous chemicals caused the vehicle to crash. I'm having a tough time with those two questions, since neither Swift nor the chemicals themselves were sitting at the steering wheel...:headscratch:

 

[Picnic]

[MENTION=8941]Injun[/MENTION], you sure your not FMCSA or USDOT? I just took my hazmat test 2 weeks ago and Sister, you nailed it. Part of what you said was on my very test!

I think Injun is a secret spy for the GOSTTITTF. (Government Officials Secretly Trying To Infiltrate The Truckers Forum) or the BOOBIES organazation, (Breaking Owner Operators Balls In Every Situation).

 

[Injun]

Just a lowly Swifty lease-op. Nuthin' more.

Like thousands of other Swifties, I paid attention during orientation.


And I've hauled a lot more ethyl-methyl-bad-s*** than most.

 

[killroy]

No Y'all missed my point or I did not make it clear enough. 1. There was nothing on the bills that it was Haz Mat, no X in the HM line.
There was no Crash, it was the powder left in the trailer from leaking bags ( Herbicide ) from what I understand it was cross loaded out of containers and loaded on Swift trailers and an other carrier's trailers. The loads were pre loaded & sealed. The 2 Swift trucks both did not have anything in their paperwork to make them think there might be a problem. IT IS THE CARRIERS RESPONSABILTY TO KNOW WHAT IS ON THEIR TRAILERS. The load planers ( morons ) had no clue, the DM's had no clue. So obviously the drivers had no clue. They did their jobs the loads got from point A to B on time and in good condition. The other Swift truck unloaded first and left, then as my friend finished unloading the 2 trucks from the other Carrier arrived. They both had placards on and the same product. That's when the phone calls started. Totally Swifts fault. If the other Carrier knew what it was, made sure their drivers had the proper paper work, had MSDS's, and the proper endorsements to pull the load, and the proper placards. How come Swift did not?

 

[Injun]

[MENTION=4531]killroy[/MENTION], you are DEAD WRONG. When I have more time, I will cite and quote the regulation.

 

[Injun]

1. There was nothing on the bills that it was Haz Mat, no X in the HM line. ...it was cross loaded out of containers and loaded on Swift trailers and an other carrier's trailers. The loads were pre loaded & sealed. The 2 Swift trucks both did not have anything in their paperwork to make them think there might be a problem.

WHO did the drivers get the BOLs from? WHO prepared the BOL and chose what name to ship that herbicide under? WHO loaded the trailers?

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHIPPER RESPONSIBILITIES

DETERMINE WHETHER A MATERIAL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A "HAZARDOUS MATERIAL"
PROPER SHIPPING NAME
CLASS/DIVISION
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
HAZARD WARNING LABEL
PACKAGING
MARKING
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
SHIPPING PAPERS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TELEPHONE NUMBER
CERTIFICATION
COMPATIBILITY
BLOCKING AND BRACING
PLACARDING [provide correct placards. It's the DRIVER's responsibility to attach them to the trailer.]
SECURITY PLAN
INCIDENT REPORTING

How to Comply with Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

IT IS THE CARRIERS RESPONSABILTY TO KNOW WHAT IS ON THEIR TRAILERS. The load planers ( morons ) had no clue, the DM's had no clue. So obviously the drivers had no clue.

The drivers were the ones who had the bills in their hands. They were the ones reading "44,000 pounds Ethylmethylbadchit." If they couldn't figure out between the two of them that "ethylmethylbadchit" might indicate a chemical and a chemical name might mean it needs to be placarded...and then communicate their concerns to Safety, how in the hell is Swift's office staff supposed to know? Telepathy?

The drivers ARE the eyes and ears for whatever carrier they run for. It is ABSOLUTELY their responsibility to read the BOL on every load they haul. If they even think there might be ANY issue, they need to bring it to their Safety department's and the shipper's attention.

If the other Carrier knew what it was, made sure their drivers had the proper paper work, had MSDS's, and the proper endorsements to pull the load, and the proper placards. How come Swift did not?

As noted above, it was NOT the carrier that provided paperwork, MSDS's or placards. That was the SHIPPER.


Shippers NEVER lie about loads. EVER. That's why I hauled a 28,000 pound load of alcoholic beverages from Railex in Schenectady with my Prime Cascadia and Utility trailer that placed me 3,000 pounds over gross. My tractor and trailer magically gained 20,000 pounds because the SHIPPER wouldn't LIE??

Why lie about a hazmat load? Well, for starters, because it's cheaper to pay a carrier for a non-hazmat load. Maybe that other carrier didn't mind hauling it for the going rate on regular freight. But Swift won't. They WILL charge the hazmat premium. Shipper doesn't want to pay that, so it's just easier to claim "consumer quantities." and not list a packing group, hazard class, ID number or anything of the sort.

It's no ****n wonder Swift had a bird over this. I would be surprised....shocked....if Swift didn't turn around and bill the shipper for the hazmat premium, your friend's hospital bills, cleanup of the trailers, the additional insurance premium, plus whatever else they could think up. I imagine it became an extremely expensive load for that shipper.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CARRIER RESPONSIBILITY
[DRIVER, as Carrier representative, because a Safety person isn't going to be on-site at every shipper to hold the DRIVER's hand.]

SHIPPING PAPER [read it!]
PLACARD AND MARK VEHICLE
LOADING AND UNLOADING
COMPATIBILITY [know what goes with what and, more importantly, what DOESN'T]
BLOCKING AND BRACING
INCIDENT REPORTING
SECURITY PLAN [follow it!]

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CARRIER RESPONSIBILITY

SHIPPING PAPER [review with DRIVER...Swift does this on all KNOWN hazmat loads...has the driver read every line and item tagged as hazmat]
COMPATIBILITY [so they can verify to the driver it's a safe load]
INCIDENT REPORTING
SECURITY PLAN [make one and insist the DRIVER follow it]
EMPLOYEE TRAINING [which Swift does, ad nauseum...how many times we come on these boards bitching about yet ANOTHER training session or video we are ALL required to get signed off because SOMEBODY didn't follow PROCEDURE]

You are most likely basing your opinion that it was Swift's fault on this:

The carrier must check to insure that the material offered by the shipper is properly described and packaged.

Carriers do this. Through their paid representatives, their DRIVERS.

You have been in this business long enough to know shipping papers are issued by the SHIPPER, not the carrier, and are most often prepared at the time of shipment. To expect a carrier office staff person thousands of miles away to know for sure what is inside every one of 75,000 trailers is ridiculous.

Your credibility is oo:.
You will believe whatever you want to, regardless of what the actual facts are.

 

[Racer X 69]

No Y'all missed my point or I did not make it clear enough. 1. There was nothing on the bills that it was Haz Mat, no X in the HM line.
There was no Crash, it was the powder left in the trailer from leaking bags ( Herbicide ) from what I understand it was cross loaded out of containers and loaded on Swift trailers and an other carrier's trailers. The loads were pre loaded & sealed. The 2 Swift trucks both did not have anything in their paperwork to make them think there might be a problem. IT IS THE CARRIERS RESPONSABILTY TO KNOW WHAT IS ON THEIR TRAILERS. The load planers ( morons ) had no clue, the DM's had no clue. So obviously the drivers had no clue. They did their jobs the loads got from point A to B on time and in good condition. The other Swift truck unloaded first and left, then as my friend finished unloading the 2 trucks from the other Carrier arrived. They both had placards on and the same product. That's when the phone calls started. Totally Swifts fault. If the other Carrier knew what it was, made sure their drivers had the proper paper work, had MSDS's, and the proper endorsements to pull the load, and the proper placards. How come Swift did not?

So I guess I missed it. Where and how did your friend get injured to the point she needed medical attention?

 

[Injun]

[MENTION=3730]Racer X 69[/MENTION]...I think he's indicating it was when she went into the trailer after being unloaded and apparently inhaled the herbicide.

 

[killroy]

X they sent her to the Hospital because she had started to sweep out the trailer, good thing she always wears a dust mask.

Now Injun you can quote Regs till the cows come home, I know them as well as you do, and don't have to cut an paste them. Now I did not start this to get a big controversy started. I started it because I found it funny as hell ( since no one got hurt or busted. The Haz Mat clean up crew was a private company Swift hired. ) If the driver had done anything wrong the Company would not be falling all over themselves apologizing, and making sure she is doing okay.

Now regs not withstanding, it is the Carriers responsibility to know what is in their trailers, as well as send qualified an properly trained drivers to haul said load. If the booking people are not trained to recognize a Haz Mat load the computer system should red flag it as soon as they enter load info in. Ours do. And as far as a non Haz Mat driver is concerned when they get their paper work all they know is to make sure there is no X in the HM column. Because we are talking about drivers that haul paper, food stuffs like Bush Beans which is only hazardous after consumed LOL. Now I know for a fact that they have sent her to pick up loads in the past that were Haz Mat, and she caught it when she looked at the paperwork so she made a phone call an they took the load off of her. Now you know the Company is not training non Haz Mat drivers in all the proceeders involved with hauling those loads, waist of money. Because they will forget 90% of it in a month because they never use it. And as far as my credibility goes it is just fine, no need to start getting personal Swifty, as I have said to me the whole thing is funny. Remember if you have a different view point we must Agree to disagree agreeably. I could get very nasty, but what is the point in that, it takes the fun out of it. Have a nice day.

 

[Injun]

I'm trying to remember a time when Celtic Carriers (a little three-truck operation I ran for in 2008) knew exactly what was inside my trailer without me telling them... i can't.

Telephone conversations went kinda like this:

"Hey, Boss, it's Injun. Got loaded up, on my way to Scranton."

"How much weight do you have?"

"30,000 pounds."

"What are ya haulin'?"

"Bananas..."

"Smartass."


The point is, he only had three trailers and always had to ask what we were hauling. Because he didn't know until it was on the trailer and we drivers had bills to fax him. He had a rough idea only because of the name of the business.

But when you're talking about a cross-dock operation, there could literally be ANYTHING in the trailer, from Legos to (as in the friend's case) herbicide...or worse.

I can see, though, that regardless of common sense, logic, regulation or experience, this guy has it firmly planted in his head that it was the carrier's fault. It really doesn't matter who the carrier is. According to him, every carrier, everywhere, should have a photograph of what is inside their trailers so they can babysit their drivers through a procedure EVERY driver at some carriers are trained to handle.

Of course, it's also the carrier's fault that the information the drivers were given was not retained. Even though the carrier issues a 200-page manual that covers everything from weight distribution to load identification, it's the carrier's responsibility to make the information stay in somebody's head.

As a matter of fact, every driver was required to take a hazmat course about two months ago, under threat of safety hold...regardless of whether they were endorsed or not, or whether their particular gig entailed hazmat.

I'm done. At this point, all I can do is shake my head and stare.

 

[Duck]

Now regs not withstanding, it is the Carriers responsibility to know what is in their trailers, as well as send qualified an properly trained drivers to haul said load. If the booking people are not trained to recognize a Haz Mat load the computer system should red flag it as soon as they enter load info in.

Not always the case. I drive for a 100% food grade reefer fleet, about 250 trailers, 185 power units, not counting the boss's hot-rod Peterbilt and his toy box full of antique trucks. No haz-mat.

I've caught shippers trying to load haz-mat in our trailers a few times. The last time was in Chicago about a month or so ago. The shipper had actually booked the truck to haul a bunch of big cube-shaped plastic tanks full of some mysterious blue liquid that turned out to be something they use for making concrete. But the guy on the forklift got me confused with a different load & started talking about placards & stuff before he even put anything in the trailer. I told him we don't haul hazmat at all. I was hazmat certified but the carrier isn't. He did some clickety-click stuff on his computer and said "oops, my bad, I thought you were CR England". (No, I didn't smack him but I should've)

no need to start getting personal Swifty, as I have said to me the whole thing is funny. Remember if you have a different view point we must Agree to disagree agreeably. I could get very nasty, but what is the point in that, it takes the fun out of it. Have a nice day.

 

[Tim]

The shipper had actually booked the truck to haul a bunch of big cube-shaped plastic tanks full of some mysterious blue liquid that turned out to be something they use for making concrete.

And you might also had to have a tanker endorsement too.

 

[Duck]

And you might also had to have a tanker endorsement too.

The stuff I actually did end up hauling wasn't hazmat but it was in tanks about pallet size at the bottom and 4 feet tall. I had hazmat & tanker but the carrier doesn't.

Tanker endorsement, as far as I know, isn't required but I do remember there was some kind of crap the feds were flapping their jaws of stupidity about, .. something about requiring tanker endorsements for loads like that. Did they ever make that the law?

 

[Tim]

The stuff I actually did end up hauling wasn't hazmat but it was in tanks about pallet size at the bottom and 4 feet tall. I had hazmat & tanker but the carrier doesn't.

Tanker endorsement, as far as I know, isn't required but I do remember there was some kind of crap the feds were flapping their jaws of stupidity about, .. something about requiring tanker endorsements for loads like that. Did they ever make that the law?

Yes.

Something like 119gallon tote tank or 1000 aggregate volume of bulk containers.

 

[killroy]

I'm trying to remember a time when Celtic Carriers (a little three-truck operation I ran for in 2008) knew exactly what was inside my trailer without me telling them... i can't.

Telephone conversations went kinda like this:

"Hey, Boss, it's Injun. Got loaded up, on my way to Scranton."

"How much weight do you have?"

"30,000 pounds."

"What are ya haulin'?"

"Bananas..."

"Smartass."

I can see, though, that regardless of common sense, logic, regulation or experience, this guy has it firmly planted in his head that it was the carrier's fault. It really doesn't matter who the carrier is. According to him, every carrier, everywhere, should have a photograph of what is inside their trailers so they can babysit their drivers through a procedure EVERY driver at some carriers are trained to handle.

I'm done. At this point, all I can do is shake my head and stare.

This is no longer 08 times have changed. But I see you will defend Swift no matter what, so at this point there is not any point in continuing the conversation. And don't shake your head to much, or it will start to hurt.

The stuff I actually did end up hauling wasn't hazmat but it was in tanks about pallet size at the bottom and 4 feet tall. I had hazmat & tanker but the carrier doesn't.

Tanker endorsement, as far as I know, isn't required but I do remember there was some kind of crap the feds were flapping their jaws of stupidity about, .. something about requiring tanker endorsements for loads like that. Did they ever make that the law?

Now that is something that happens everyday guy on the dock tries to load the wrong thing on you. I've had it happen many a time.

 

[Duck]

Yes.

Something like 119gallon tote tank or 1000 aggregate volume of bulk containers.

Oops. Does it require the carrier have some kind of certification or just that the driver have "tanker"? I had the tanker endorsement at the time.