SAIA | Driver facing cameras

I have to share the road with you. If I see one of your drivers in violation, I could report it
And prolly would. You are a little bitter. Of course I've seen fellow company drivers do this so it wouldn't surprise me that a reject would.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do know of the policy. My point is...if they were to enforce that policy, then they are obligated to do so without exception for all.

After we were made aware of the new company policy against tobacco on company property (including equipment), my TM didn't stop chewing. Always had a spit cup on his desk. That was a violation of the policy which was, sadly, not enforced. B
The policy does not address smokeless tobacco products on company property. Only smoking. What your TM did is not against company policy ... FYI. It does state no tobacco products in company vehicles but it says nothing about company property. Although if I was visiting Atlanta corporate I wouldn't advise anyone dipping or chewing.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be hilarious to walk into the ACO with like half a bag of Beechnut in your cheek? Then shake hands with Rick and ask where the garbage is so you can spit? Ha ha
 
False. It is against Saia company policy for ANY driver to talk on any phone while driving. This includes city, linehaul, and sales. Policy is "if the wheels are turning, you aren't talking." Bluetooth is immaterial.

This came directly from Saia safety, per inquiry this afternoon.

You said illegal not against company policy. But EVERYONE uses there phones when driving. You see drivers wearing there Bluetooths at the terminals. And it helps drivers stay awake at night.
 
You just made my point. If EVERYONE is talking on the phone while driving, and that practice is against company policy, then EVERYONE is in violation of said policy. So, if they have this policy, it must not be enforced universally, otherwise, EVERYONE would be subject to disciplinary action.

Now, if we can agree that not EVERYONE is being disciplined, then what is the point of having the policy in the first place? At what "line in the sand" does Saia enforce its own policies and procedures?

IMO, it makes no sense to have a policy if it's not going to be enforced. And if you enforce it for one, you must enforce for all...
 
You just made my point. If EVERYONE is talking on the phone while driving, and that practice is against company policy, then EVERYONE is in violation of said policy. So, if they have this policy, it must not be enforced universally, otherwise, EVERYONE would be subject to disciplinary action.

Now, if we can agree that not EVERYONE is being disciplined, then what is the point of having the policy in the first place? At what "line in the sand" does Saia enforce its own policies and procedures?

IMO, it makes no sense to have a policy if it's not going to be enforced. And if you enforce it for one, you must enforce for all...
The policy is there to protect them, not get drivers fired. Just like every other trucking company. This way when you bump someone they can point to the policy and tell the lawyer, sue them...not us.
 
But, the "deep pockets theory" prevails. If you are employed by Saia, and get in an accident, I dare say Saia has far more $$$ than the employee.
 
It will escalate once they get cameras in more trucks. Eventually they will start writing up or firing drivers for every stupid thing they see on the babysitter camera. Eventually drivers will start going elsewhere and they will have a harder time finding drivers at all. I just hope they learn their lesson quick and knock off all the stupid bull ::shit::

Saw it happen at Con-Job, and the exact same thing is happening here. At least Con-Way had enough brains to let their drivers use use their bluetooths.
 
The policy is there to protect them, not get drivers fired. Just like every other trucking company. This way when you bump someone they can point to the policy and tell the lawyer, sue them...not us.
Generally the policy is there to protect the company from a negligence suit,if you are talking on your phone and get in an accident the company is still liable for damages but not negligent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ump
False. It is against Saia company policy for ANY driver to talk on any phone while driving. This includes city, linehaul, and sales. Policy is "if the wheels are turning, you aren't talking." Bluetooth is immaterial.

This came directly from Saia safety, per inquiry this afternoon.
just don't get caught you gotta be smart nothing is against the rules if you don't get stupid and get caught lol
 
if you need your phone to stay awake then you are not sleeping enough !!!! for goodness sakes take a power nap get out and walk around a little turn up the radio and sing along gosh use your head drivers
 
On the driver as well. It's a blatant violation of our privacy law up here, it's being left alone... For now.
I worked for this chicken ::shit:: outfit for 2 1/2 years before they decided to go FEDEX on the drivers. Working team was good, than they came up with some nonsense garbage about putting California drivers on hourly/ Than eliminated the teams all together. Basing this on some California minimum wage law.Try to find this law on the books. It isn't there. Try to get a straight answer on anything from management. You wont. Driver facing cameras doesn't surprise me at all. Just make sure you get some of your lunch on the lens. That will take care of some of the nonsense.
 
Neither of you acknowledge the fact that all of this relates to the OUTWARD facing cameras, which most of us have no problem with. The driver facing camera does nothing other than incriminate the driver. It has nothing to do with being "cutting edge"
Outward facing cameras are OK. The problem with them is when some idiot 4 wheeler shaves your bumper and cuts you off . You hit your brakes to avoid a problem, than safety calls you in to ask you why you were following too close.
 
I understand you have been through this at Conway and I understand you feel it's micromanagement. But if your not doing anything wrong why should it matter? Distracted driving is a big problem these days in trucking, especially cell phone usage. If it discourages drivers that have a problem following our rules why would you be against that? It will reduce those cell phone related accidents.
Cell phone related accidents reduced. I can see that . Just maybe the company should quit calling the drivers while their driving.
 
I worked for this chicken :::shit::: outfit for 2 1/2 years before they decided to go FEDEX on the drivers. Working team was good, than they came up with some nonsense garbage about putting California drivers on hourly/ Than eliminated the teams all together. Basing this on some California minimum wage law.Try to find this law on the books. It isn't there. Try to get a straight answer on anything from management. You wont. Driver facing cameras doesn't surprise me at all. Just make sure you get some of your lunch on the lens. That will take care of some of the nonsense.
It's not cuz of minimum wage u can thank fedex freight for couple of big accidents line drivers had so they came to a conclusion that line drivers getting paid mileage were driving too fast and passed a law to pay California based drivers by the hour to slow them down , all California companies will soon have to comply n pay all line drivers hourly
 
The policy does not address smokeless tobacco products on company property. Only smoking. What your TM did is not against company policy ... FYI. It does state no tobacco products in company vehicles but it says nothing about company property. Although if I was visiting Atlanta corporate I wouldn't advise anyone dipping or chewing.

it dose include smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes
 
ootKN6B.jpg
Jack, I can't seem to find it. Could you please show me where I can find it. I don't doubt you. I just can't find it.
 
Top