Yellow | YRC California Driver Class Action Lawsuit!

YRC California Driver Class Action Lawsuit
Join Now!


Current or Former YRC Freight Drivers – –

Don’t let the company get away with stealing your hard earned wages

Do you know about the YRC Freight driver Class Action Lawsuit?
http://yrcclassaction.com/
:busted:
Is this like one of those ads on tv where if you buy 1 for $19.95, they give you a second one for free ???
 
YBzsMoF.jpg

Jamie, stop grinning! This could be huge!
:stirthepot:
 
It sounds legit but there will be one hell of a lot of leg work to root through all of the complainants' records to see who didn't take their lunch and breaks but got docked for it.
 
It's to funny because we got a few guys we call em 7;30 no lunch driver's , skip lunch daily & get paid for it !! guess they trying to make up for the -15% ???
 
It sounds legit but there will be one hell of a lot of leg work to root through all of the complainants' records to see who didn't take their lunch and breaks but got docked for it.
How many clowns blow through there lunch every day.We have a few, They also have knee pads too.
 
Somebody forget to tell the Shyster Lawyer there is collective bargaining agreement involved?

There's a sucker born every minute. Unreal. Courts will not look into any issues like this because the collective bargaining agreement stipulates that all disputes first go to arbitration. The only way disputes can be taken to court is if an arbitration decision does not explicitly follow the contract. The courts may then reverse the arbitration. Ask me how I know. (Been there, done that).
 
Los Angeles Labor Union Lawyers Explains Why Employees Can Sue Even When Unions Have Arbitrated Claims

By: Labor law attorney Douglas N. Silverstein

If some Federal or state law is being violated then of course a worker may have legal/court options. However, that's not what's happening in this particular case. The contract/labor agreement expressly provides for lunch times and break times which parallel or exceed what the law requires. If the foolish drivers don't take that time then they are the problem and have only themselves to blame. Once again it's the Pogo syndrome at work - "We have met the enemy and he is us".

From the earlier article:

"According to the lawsuit allegations and/or our investigation, YRC pressures drivers with unrealistic routes. This results in YRC drivers working during meal periods and not taking rest periods.

When a company encourages workers to work while they are clocked out, this is wage theft. When this happens drivers are owed for the time that they work.

When drivers don’t get meal periods and rest periods based upon the company policy, we are usually talking being owed an hour’s pay for every time one was missed. This really adds up."
 
We are now running ELD's in all our city units here at ABF.You must take your lunch break by your 8th hour or your in violation and will be called in on the carpet.To me it don't matter because I take my lunch between my 4th and 6th hour per contract.
Eld's are the best thing they came out with, no way you can't take your lunch without being in violation. If for some reason you move the vehicle or stop it early it goes back to zero. There is a way to enter it manually if you are forced by some emergency to move the truck, it takes about 6 steps....
 
I wonder when someone is going to give YRC trouble about the fact that they are not in compliance with California Vehicle Code Section 26708 (13B)

(B) A vehicle equipped with a video event recorder shall have a notice posted in a visible location which states that a passenger’s conversation may be recorded.
(C) Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds before and after a triggering event.
(D) The registered owner or lessee of the vehicle may disable the device.
(E) The data recorded to the device is the property of the registered owner or lessee of the vehicle.
(F) When a person is driving for hire as an employee in a vehicle with a video event recorder, the
person’s employer shall provide unedited copies of the recordings upon the request of the employee or the employee’s representative. These copies shall be provided free of charge to the employee and within five days of the request.

Also, I hear that it is possible for dispatch to listen through the Intermec handheld device and hear what is going on in the cab of the truck without the driver's knowledge. Below is a quote from a website describing the penalties in California if they are caught doing this.

"Penal Code 632 PC - Eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications. ("(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment"
 
Last edited:
I wonder when someone is going to give YRC trouble about the fact that they are not in compliance with California Vehicle Code Section 26708 (13B)

(B) A vehicle equipped with a video event recorder shall have a notice posted in a visible location which states that a passenger’s conversation may be recorded.
(C) Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds before and after a triggering event.
(D) The registered owner or lessee of the vehicle may disable the device.
(E) The data recorded to the device is the property of the registered owner or lessee of the vehicle.
(F) When a person is driving for hire as an employee in a vehicle with a video event recorder, the
person’s employer shall provide unedited copies of the recordings upon the request of the employee or
the employee’s representative. These copies shall be provided free of charge to the employee and
within five days of the request.

Also, I hear that it is possible for dispatch to listen through the Intermec handheld device and hear what is going on in the cab of the truck without the driver's knowledge. Below is a quote from a website describing the penalties in California if they are caught doing this.

"Penal Code 632 PC - Eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications. ("(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment"

Palletmule, actually part (14) applies to us - commercial motor vehicles. And we are "drivers", not "passengers".

(14) (A) A video event recorder in a commercial motor vehicle with
the capability of monitoring driver performance to improve driver
safety, which may be mounted no more than two inches below the upper
edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the
driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Subparagraphs (B) to (F), inclusive, of paragraph (13) apply to the
exemption provided by this paragraph.
 
So, are you going to be the first to give YRCF trouble because there is no sign? Let me know how that turns out.

I would like very much to know what records may be available that would either confirm, or dismiss the suspicion that the handhelds have been used to eavesdrop on the drivers private conversations.
 
Top