More driver classification suits coming

[Mike]

What started as AB5 in California is looking more and more like it will not only stick, but spread. This is becoming the easy way, IMO, for someone who fails in a lease purchase, or in truck ownership, to go after the carrier in order to capitalize on choices that didn't work out for them.

All this is going to take is for a few nationwide cases to go in favor of the plaintiff and you will start seeing trucking companies folding up their lease purchase programs as well as your ability lease the equipment that you own on with a carrier.

Something like this never should have gone this far. As far as I see it, it's another case where personal responsibility is yet again taken away.

“This stuff is not going to go away,” attorney R. Eddie Wayland told an audience about lawsuits over independent contractor status. “A lot of lawyers are making way too much money.”

And given that, how a trucking company can protect itself from suits over that status was the focus of Wayland and Mark Hunt, both of them partners at the Nashville law firm of King & Ballow, speaking at the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting in Las Vegas this week.

The primary message driven home by Hunt and Wayland was that a tremendous amount of up-front diligence is going to be necessary at trucking companies that use independent contractors (ICs) if they don’t want to find themselves on the losing end of a suit that rules those drivers to actually have been employees.

Be prepared, attorneys say: More driver classification suits coming

A pair of lawyers tell a TCA audience that taking steps early can help in later litigation.

www.freightwaves.com

 

[Electric Chicken]

What started as AB5 in California is looking more and more like it will not only stick, but spread. This is becoming the easy way, IMO, for someone who fails in a lease purchase, or in truck ownership, to go after the carrier in order to capitalize on choices that didn't work out for them.

All this is going to take is for a few nationwide cases to go in favor of the plaintiff and you will start seeing trucking companies folding up their lease purchase programs as well as your ability lease the equipment that you own on with a carrier.

Something like this never should have gone this far. As far as I see it, it's another case where personal responsibility is yet again taken away.

Be prepared, attorneys say: More driver classification suits coming

A pair of lawyers tell a TCA audience that taking steps early can help in later litigation.

www.freightwaves.com

Wants me to sign up to read it.

 

[Electric Chicken]

These lease carriers do like to ride that line and treat you like a company driver though, including the one I'm at now. So I get it. If you're going to dictate what I do and only give me yes/no terms for it (I either do what you say or I don't run, which isn't really real freedom and/or choice) then I need to see more benefits like a company driver.

Especially when the money isn't really that good to justify the risks.

 

[Mike]

These lease carriers do like to ride that line and treat you like a company driver though, including the one I'm at now. So I get it. If you're going to dictate what I do and only give me yes/no terms for it (I either do what you say or I don't run, which isn't really real freedom and/or choice) then I need to see more benefits like a company driver.

Especially when the money isn't really that good to justify the risks.

That is what you need to decide when reviewing the contract before leasing equipment to a company. I wouldn’t lease to most companies, but that’s a choice I have to make based on reviewing the contract before I agree to it.

 

[Electric Chicken]

That is what you need to decide when reviewing the contract before leasing equipment to a company. I wouldn’t lease to most companies, but that’s a choice I have to make based on reviewing the contract before I agree to it.

I agree. But they try to take control in ways that aren't spelled out in any contract.

Nowhere does it say that my options are what they admit to having or nothing.

Nowhere does it say a safety lady on a power trip will be brought in in a few months and lock you out of dispatch for not replying to emails you didn't even see.

Nowhere does it say the safety lady will lock you out of dispatch when she doesn't read emails properly, or the system fails to upload your log edits or certifications.

This is company driver levels of control over you and a corresponding loss of revenue, that you was never spelled out for you to reject.

Your only "freedom" in these scenarios is to leave the organization, rather than them actually knowing their boundaries.

 

[mndriver]

“Motor carrier responsible for safety” comes to my mind.

And if your shit isn’t up to fmcsa guidelines…

Well, get with it.

They have to comply AND they have to make sure the driver is in compliance…

Maybe it’s time to just go back to “trip leases “

 

[Mike]

Maybe it’s time to just go back to “trip leases “

Not a chance.

If we go backwards, we are going full backwards to the point where you lease your equipment to a carrier, and they hire you as an employee. The government wants your taxes to be deducted from every paycheck to ensure you are paying more than enough in advance at all times.

Owning a truck or any equipment is going to be absolutely pointless if this crap keeps steamrolling forward unless you are a carrier yourself. And next, they will find a way to destroy that if at all possible.

Nobody should be in favor of the Government being able to have a say in any of this. It is not the Government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. It's the government that you need to be watching out for, not the carriers who owner operators feel aren't paying them enough.

 

[Rigjockey]

Not a chance.

If we go backwards, we are going full backwards to the point where you lease your equipment to a carrier, and they hire you as an employee. The government wants your taxes to be deducted from every paycheck to ensure you are paying more than enough in advance at all times.

Owning a truck or any equipment is going to be absolutely pointless if this crap keeps steamrolling forward unless you are a carrier yourself. And next, they will find a way to destroy that if at all possible.

Nobody should be in favor of the Government being able to have a say in any of this. It is not the Government's responsibility to protect people from themselves. It's the government that you need to be watching out for, not the carriers who owner operators feel aren't paying them enough.

Where does OOIDA stand on this issue. It would seem to me they should against this bill being as they are the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
But, somehow I think they would be in favor of this bill.

 

[Duck]

Where does OOIDA stand on this issue. It would seem to me they should against this bill being as they are the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
But, somehow I think they would be in favor of this bill.

OOIDA is against AB5 if that's the bill you're referring to.

 

[Mike]

Where does OOIDA stand on this issue. It would seem to me they should against this bill being as they are the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
But, somehow I think they would be in favor of this bill.

OOIDA is very much against it, but it’s a California law so much easier to get passed. Other states will do something similar.