Maybe this fellows crusade is just what the industry needs. In every ‘revolution’ there’s one person with a vision. Tell me, would you turn down time and a half after 40 if he wins?They are very upfront about the overtime policy when you’re offered the job, if you decide to take it that’s on you. Labor laws and exemptions aside that’s just common sense and not being an idiot.
It’s not like they’re lying about anything to get people in the door.
...
Stupid that OD will have to waste a bunch of money on this lawsuit. Just my opinion.
Maybe. Nevertheless, it brings in the ‘dust-sniffers’ from a Federal agency that might be interested in just how things roll at some of these freight companies. If I’m a current employee at a place that doesn’t pay OT, or doesn’t pay OT until after ‘X’ amount of hours, I would welcome this with open arms. This is a class-action lawsuit too...which brings everybody’s hours into question.This will most likely be a dead wall.Love seeing thing's like this.Sometimes it will change thing's for the better.But,this all boil's down to a pissed off ex employee
ya, could have just paid ot and avoided itStupid that OD will have to waste a bunch of money on this lawsuit. Just my opinion.
I’m not hourly but I’ll still play.Maybe this fellows crusade is just what the industry needs. In every ‘revolution’ there’s one person with a vision. Tell me, would you turn down time and a half after 40 if he wins?
Fedex freight in my area is over 28 dollars an hour and they get overtime they are also getting a early raise this year that will put that number higher, the last year or so ltl companies have been raising there hourly rates at Dayton, saia, even central transport who have had depressed wages and bad insurance! Point being OD can’t say they pay a higher hourly wage anymore!I’m not hourly but I’ll still play.
Say OD does start to pay overtime, and if they do this you could expect them to match many other companies pay that do give OT.
Saia, Dayton, and others - they all get overtime at the cost of a slightly lower wage, about $25/hour around me compared to ODs 28.73.
60 hours with OT at $25/hour: $1,750
60 hours straight time at ODs $28.73: $1,723
How many of you get 60 hours every week? Probably more like 50-55 in reality where you’ll actually earn more with the benefit that if you have a bad week, say only 40 hours, you’ll make $150 more than your overtime paid counterparts.
In a perfect world you’d get a higher hourly rate AND overtime, there are some companies like this and I’d love to see all of us getting paid as much as possible but when it comes down to a higher rate at straight time versus a lower rate with OT I would take the higher rate myself.
Something else to consider, maybe OD does lose this lawsuit. Goodbye full-time switchers, now linehaul and city guys spot their own trailers with help here and there from the dock. It’s as simple as that. This is a fairly powerful and efficient corporation, they shouldn’t just bend over because of a lawsuit that has several easy workarounds.
In my area, the northeast Fedex is around 27.50 with ot after 8 and Saia is crushing it at 29.54 with ot after 45. Contrary to what many supervisors at OD want drivers to believe those guys are getting as much ot as they want when it's busy. I like it here at OD, I have over 15 years with the company and don't want to start over somewhere else but we are definitely falling behind in pay.I’m not hourly but I’ll still play.
Say OD does start to pay overtime, and if they do this you could expect them to match many other companies pay that do give OT.
Saia, Dayton, and others - they all get overtime at the cost of a slightly lower wage, about $25/hour around me compared to ODs 28.73.
60 hours with OT at $25/hour: $1,750
60 hours straight time at ODs $28.73: $1,723
How many of you get 60 hours every week? Probably more like 50-55 in reality where you’ll actually earn more with the benefit that if you have a bad week, say only 40 hours, you’ll make $150 more than your overtime paid counterparts.
In a perfect world you’d get a higher hourly rate AND overtime, there are some companies like this and I’d love to see all of us getting paid as much as possible but when it comes down to a higher rate at straight time versus a lower rate with OT I would take the higher rate myself.
Something else to consider, maybe OD does lose this lawsuit. Goodbye full-time switchers, now linehaul and city guys spot their own trailers with help here and there from the dock. It’s as simple as that. This is a fairly powerful and efficient corporation, they shouldn’t just bend over because of a lawsuit that has several easy workarounds.
I won’t argue with that. Guess I didn’t realize how much it varied by region and I was just looking at what’s closest to me.In my area, the northeast Fedex is around 27.50 with ot after 8 and Saia is crushing it at 29.54 with ot after 45. Contrary to what many supervisors at OD want drivers to believe those guys are getting as much ot as they want when it's busy. I like it here at OD, I have over 15 years with the company and don't want to start over somewhere else but we are definitely falling behind in pay.
Yes he does.Like I said earlier there was a case in Florida back in 2016 that I believe the same lawyer firm took another trucking company to court over dispatcher's and switcher's and they won.I wish I could post it here.I have never figured out how to post link's.Here's the actual law...he does have a case if he never loaded at all.
Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA provides an overtime exemption for employees who are within the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to Section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, except those employees covered by the small vehicle exception described below.
Thus, the 13(b)(1) overtime exemption applies to employees who are:
1. Employer
- Employed by a motor carrier or motor private carrier, as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 13102 (see Employer below);
- Drivers, driver’s helpers, loaders, or mechanics whose duties affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce (see Employee Duties below); and
- Not covered by the small vehicle exception (see Small Vehicle Exception below).
- Motor Carriers are persons providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation;
2. Employee Duties
- Motor Private Carriers are persons other than motor carriers transporting property by motor vehicle if the person is the owner, lessee, or bailee of the property being transported, and the property is being transported for sale, lease, rent, or bailment, or to further a commercial enterprise.
- The employee’s duties must include the performance, either regularly or from time to time, of safety-affecting activities on a motor vehicle used in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce. Employees must perform such duties as a driver, driver’s helper, loader, or mechanic. Employees performing such duties meet the duties requirement of the exemption regardless of the proportion of “safety affecting activities” performed, except where the continuing duties have no substantial direct effect on “safety of operation,” or where such safety affecting activities are so trivial, casual, and insignificant as to be de minimis (so long as there is no change in the duties).
- Transportation involved in the employee’s duties must be in interstate commerce (across State or international lines) or connect with an intrastate terminal (rail, air, water, or land) to continue an interstate journey of goods that have not come to rest at a final destination.
a) The employer is shown to have an involvement in interstate commerce; and
- Safety affecting employees who have not made an actual interstate trip may still meet the duties requirement of the exemption if:
b) The employee could, in the regular course of employment, reasonably have been expected to make an interstate journey or could have worked on the motor vehicle in such a way as to be safety-affecting.
- The Secretary of Transportation will assert jurisdiction over employees for a four-month period beginning with the date they could have been called upon to, or actually did, engage in the carrier’s interstate activities. Thus, such employees would satisfy the duties requirement of the Section 13(b)(1) exemption for the same four-month period, notwithstanding references to the contrary in 29 C.F.R. § 782.2.
Is that the actual text from the 1935 law??? If it is, we all know this industry has changed a hundredfold since 1935. My point is, this law needs to be scrapped and re-written to match current industry conditions. And things can, and MUST, be changed. Women never had the right to vote...and after the suffrage movement, they got it. Alcohol was legal, then made illegal, then made legal again. It can be done, folks. Make it so.Here's the actual law...he does have a case if he never loaded at all.
Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA provides an overtime exemption for employees who are within the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to Section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, except those employees covered by the small vehicle exception described below.
Thus, the 13(b)(1) overtime exemption applies to employees who are:
1. Employer
- Employed by a motor carrier or motor private carrier, as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 13102 (see Employer below);
- Drivers, driver’s helpers, loaders, or mechanics whose duties affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce (see Employee Duties below); and
- Not covered by the small vehicle exception (see Small Vehicle Exception below).
- Motor Carriers are persons providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation;
2. Employee Duties
- Motor Private Carriers are persons other than motor carriers transporting property by motor vehicle if the person is the owner, lessee, or bailee of the property being transported, and the property is being transported for sale, lease, rent, or bailment, or to further a commercial enterprise.
- The employee’s duties must include the performance, either regularly or from time to time, of safety-affecting activities on a motor vehicle used in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce. Employees must perform such duties as a driver, driver’s helper, loader, or mechanic. Employees performing such duties meet the duties requirement of the exemption regardless of the proportion of “safety affecting activities” performed, except where the continuing duties have no substantial direct effect on “safety of operation,” or where such safety affecting activities are so trivial, casual, and insignificant as to be de minimis (so long as there is no change in the duties).
- Transportation involved in the employee’s duties must be in interstate commerce (across State or international lines) or connect with an intrastate terminal (rail, air, water, or land) to continue an interstate journey of goods that have not come to rest at a final destination.
a) The employer is shown to have an involvement in interstate commerce; and
- Safety affecting employees who have not made an actual interstate trip may still meet the duties requirement of the exemption if:
b) The employee could, in the regular course of employment, reasonably have been expected to make an interstate journey or could have worked on the motor vehicle in such a way as to be safety-affecting.
- The Secretary of Transportation will assert jurisdiction over employees for a four-month period beginning with the date they could have been called upon to, or actually did, engage in the carrier’s interstate activities. Thus, such employees would satisfy the duties requirement of the Section 13(b)(1) exemption for the same four-month period, notwithstanding references to the contrary in 29 C.F.R. § 782.2.
Hold your finger on the story until the box pops up,and shows the word, copy. Touch copy. Then go to TB,reply,and hold finger on area where you would type words. When you see the word,paste,touch it,and the link will appear.Yes he does.Like I said earlier there was a case in Florida back in 2016 that I believe the same lawyer firm took another trucking company to court over dispatcher's and switcher's and they won.I wish I could post it here.I have never figured out how to post link's.
I’m not hourly but I’ll still play.
Say OD does start to pay overtime, and if they do this you could expect them to match many other companies pay that do give OT.
Saia, Dayton, and others - they all get overtime at the cost of a slightly lower wage, about $25/hour around me compared to ODs 28.73.
60 hours with OT at $25/hour: $1,750
60 hours straight time at ODs $28.73: $1,723
How many of you get 60 hours every week? Probably more like 50-55 in reality where you’ll actually earn more with the benefit that if you have a bad week, say only 40 hours, you’ll make $150 more than your overtime paid counterparts.
In a perfect world you’d get a higher hourly rate AND overtime, there are some companies like this and I’d love to see all of us getting paid as much as possible but when it comes down to a higher rate at straight time versus a lower rate with OT I would take the higher rate myself.
Something else to consider, maybe OD does lose this lawsuit. Goodbye full-time switchers, now linehaul and city guys spot their own trailers with help here and there from the dock. It’s as simple as that. This is a fairly powerful and efficient corporation, they shouldn’t just bend over because of a lawsuit that has several easy workarounds.