What's new

FedEx Freight | City Driver Stuff

SwampRatt said:
I realize traffic is currently light here on the board, but... Really? Only 2 willing to comment? Thank you both, for the input.
I have seen Dave's solution in use for years at a certain paper company. Not perfect, but reasonable enough.

As promised, the rest of the story, so far. Shortest version possible:

When being presented with the B/L to sign, I requested a minute (or two) to use the restroom. That's when I was told that they don't have “public” restrooms, so I could not use the facilities. My reply was that I won't be able to sign the papers because I'll be leaving without the shipment. She was shocked and asked if I was really going to leave? I said: Yeah, it's pretty simple. If I cant use the restroom here, I'll have to leave and find one elsewhere. It was suggested we leave the trailer for them to load. Not an option, as other customer freight must remain secure (locked)

Because they had not yet locked in the trailer, and I'd not yet signed the B/L, I was able to leave. Much to the credit of leadership, at that late hour (around 7pm ), I was not required to return.

Going forward, there is going to have to be a conversation with this location's management. I'm perfectly willing to have it, with all "due respect".

There are a number of principles that apply here.

We are requested to go there, provide a professional service for their customer (mutually our customer). There should be an mutual expectation of basic decency.

We are required to give up our freedom to leave, due to their lock out safety procedure, while also being denied access to even the most basic facilities during our confinement. Possibly up to an hour.

Really, it's likely to come down to the answer to one question. In case of urgent need, do you plan to physically prevent me from accessing the restroom?

Stay tuned
Click to expand...
Since I said to stay tuned, I should probably offer an update.

Little has changed. I did not have to revisit the issue until last week. Upon arrival and check-in, I asked to speak to the manager responsible for the restroom policy. That request was denied by the acting supervisor. I did ask what would happen if, after the unit was locked in for loading, there was an urgent need to use the restroom. “Would you physically prevent my access to the facilities?” Rather than answer directly, he said when notified of that situation, he would inform the loader to stop loading, then have someone unsecure the unit to allow me to leave, in order to find a facility. Stressing to him to not take this personally, I noted that this puts me in a potentially uncomfortable, embarrassing, and unacceptable position. Unacceptable, due to the time involved, just to be able to depart, and still face a 10 min ride in search for a suitable location. I apologized and left without the shipment.


Not wanting to get too deeply into the details, I must point out that locally, leadership has been supportive. I have zero complaints thus far, so there has been no need to pursue resolve via higher authority.

My research has so far been unable to find a clear requirement that such a business must provide facilities. Not saying that a requirement doesn't exist, just that I've not (yet) been able to find it. Sadly, the regulations put this burden and it's requirements on our own employer. Unfortunate, since they/we are not the villain here.

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22932

“...Thus employees who are members of mobile crews, or who work at normally unattended locations must be able to leave their work location "immediately" for a "nearby" toilet facility. This provision was obviously intended to provide these employees with protection equivalent to that the general provision provides to to employees at fixed worksites.”

Again, I stress that the company has been reasonable thus far. I don't know how far it will go, but at some point our actual customer (Name available upon private request) needs to know that their 3rd party logistics/warehouse is putting an unreasonable burden on drivers, and by extension, the freight companies.A burden with both moral as well as legal compliance implications.

There seems to be a lack of professionalism, respect, and basic decency on the part of this warehouse location (Manager). Certainly not a case of “public” access. We are invited in as a partner/service provider to their customer. Does anyone think for one minute that this policy applies to visitors who come in through the front door, rather than the back?

I don't expect any updates soon, and I hope none are necessary. I don't really want this to become a top priority, or a big deal. Probably unwise to share much more on the topic (in a public forum), unless there is some noteworthy development. Also don't want to be unreasonable, but rest assured, the case will be made through the proper channels if need be.
 
Last edited:
A new "City Pete" arrives. Certainly beefier than the baby KWs. Said to be very nice, by the 1st day driver...


gItyxHr.jpg
 
Crazy Trucker said:
Vacation deal would be nice don't see them changing it though. I wonder how they do the road drivers vacation in Cali now do they get the average like before or just the straight 40.
Click to expand...
We are getting our 52 week average starting on Jan 1, 2017. This wasa announced back in October
 
SwampRatt said:
A new "City Pete" arrives. Certainly beefier than the baby KWs. Said to be very nice, by the 1st day driver...


gItyxHr.jpg
Click to expand...
That's the 348, I'm surprised they bought those. I thought instead of those T300's they were buying the should have bought the 440 Kenworth (or the T450 before it) and this little Pete is the Pete version of that. The biggest reason is you can get a bigger motor and a little higher vantage point but still real maneuverable.
 
johndeere4020 said:
That's the 348, I'm surprised they bought those. I thought instead of those T300's they were buying the should have bought the 440 Kenworth (or the T450 before it) and this little Pete is the Pete version of that. The biggest reason is you can get a bigger motor and a little higher vantage point but still real maneuverable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm told by reliable sources that it has the same motor and low weight rating (suitable for a pup) as the T300. I've not yet checked it, but have no reason to doubt it. I do question the wisdom of that, and wonder the cost benefit metric that drives the decision.
 
SwampRatt said:
Yeah, I'm told by reliable sources that it has the same motor and low weight rating (suitable for a pup) as the T300. I've not yet checked it, but have no reason to doubt it. I do question the wisdom of that, and wonder the cost benefit metric that drives the decision.
Click to expand...
The probably do which would be stupid but not surprising. I love my little L unit but it was a dog.
 
BIG R GUY said:
Improved mirrors? What's the matter. Don't you guys love those box car Volvo ones with their great blind spots????
Click to expand...
The newest 4 appear to have more length in the mirrors than the first.
The first one only has power that is adjusted in and out,not up and down.
The new ones have both.
I'm pretty sure Big Dave's hat can cover the entire mirror.:grin:
 
nas250 said:
The newest 4 appear to have more length in the mirrors than the first.
The first one only has power that is adjusted in and out,not up and down.
The new ones have both.
I'm pretty sure Big Dave's hat can cover the entire mirror.:grin:
Click to expand...
I think his hat will cover the whole cab.... I know it will cover Wong's car....
 
The latest/greatest vans have improved securement points in the nose... I would guess the newest pups have this as well... Very nice.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:


Z4AM7JR.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top