Yellow | YRC California Driver Class Action Lawsuit!

I do know if any conversation is recorded in the cab of a truck.The company that deciphers whether or not the video should be turned in.Uses a dubbing over the conversation so not to violate the federal privacy act.I do not know if dubbing would be used in the event of a catastrophic accident.I do not know if the law(s) provides some latitude in the latter aforementioned. Whether or not your right is protected let's say if the event was above a certain dollar amount in life and damages.
 
I do know if any conversation is recorded in the cab of a truck.The company that deciphers whether or not the video should be turned in.Uses a dubbing over the conversation so not to violate the federal privacy act.I do not know if dubbing would be used in the event of a catastrophic accident.I do not know if the law(s) provides some latitude in the latter aforementioned. Whether or not your right is protected let's say if the event was above a certain dollar amount in life and damages.
How about a white noise generator. Do Spy shops have small devices that block or make it impossible to hear the recording?
 
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."

If you look at each side window in the truck, there is a new sticker that blends in with the rest saying there is a video recording device in the cab.
 
If you look at each side window in the truck, there is a new sticker that blends in with the rest saying there is a video recording device in the cab.

Thank you gnaunited, I might not have ever found the notice if you had not told me it was there.

To anyone that has ever been annoyed by the sheer number of words used to describe a simple concept in law please consider YRC's responded to this California law:

(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.
28aursi.jpg


I will let the viewer form their own opinion as to the choice of color and opacity for both the type, and backing material. Though I will say the length measured 2” and the height measured in at ⅜” and could almost be covered entirely with the padlock key.

I stand by my assertion that YRC is not in compliance with the law, not because of the absurdly small size of the notice, or because they chose translucent type on a transparent backing, but because they did not fulfill the basic requirement of the law by not informing passengers that their conversations may be recorded.
 
I retired more than 7 going on 8 years ago not a part of this b/s but from what I understand the YRC employees agreed to open the contract and willingly agree to lower their wages and benefits making it a binding part of the contract . They made this crap part of and agreed to take this step down to save their jobs . If they agreed to work threw their lunch and not be paid ,I don't think and I hope I'm wrong they will not prevail . Now where they can find some leverage is that the Dept of labor says everyone that works must receive a 20 min lunch and a second lunch break after your 10th hr.
 
Last edited:
The letter is to inform you that your personal information will be shared in order that this lawsuit proceed.
If you do not want your information accessed, you must sign the enclosed postcard and return it.
Regardless of your choice, your payout in this class action will be about $9.
 
Seems to me it should be the other way around and you should have to actively ok the release of private data not have it released by default.
 
Seems to me it should be the other way around and you should have to actively ok the release of private data not have it released by default.
I agree.
I suggest you contact CPT Group in Irvine, CA, as stated at the bottom of the letter, and present your ideas.
In the mean time, I will sign my postcard and mail it in.
:1036316054:
 
I agree.
I suggest you contact CPT Group in Irvine, CA, as stated at the bottom of the letter, and present your ideas.
In the mean time, I will sign my postcard and mail it in.
:1036316054:

I on the other-hand, will do what I can to ensure that the plaintive has a fair chance to investigate, and present his case, by making myself available to answer all questions truthfully and to the best of my ability.
 
Just last Friday my safety dept started in on the array of electronics suction cupped to my windshield.
Looks as if the TX- LA DOT have begun enforcement and if its within the sweep of the windshield wipers its good for an obstructed vision ticket. Which by the way is an Out OF Service Violation per FMCSA 393.60.
You may also note that it is against Federal Law to record with that camera on any military base. Your camera MUST be covered on any military installation.
 
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.

I'm unsure about eavesdropping, but I have witnessed supervision holding a separate recording device, in their hand, while conversing with a driver.
 
Top