ABF | Driver-facing Cameras

Individual compulsive surveillance.......is a quite different animal from indiscriminate group surveillance.........

The corporate people have no compulsion about violating your Fourth Amendment Rights........

As far as they are concerned,....workers have no Rights when they punch a time clock......
 
So, no discussion on this in the past week or so. Anyone else get pressured into attending an info type meeting at your terminal? I refused to attend, based on the level of anger about these, am not sure what to believe, different types of guys said anything from they were told these cameras alert based on eye position ( nodding off) and that so much eye variation from road, ( like looking down at phone, radio) would alert and monitor. These are high tech, not a basic camera. Was also told that just like having an accident and being fired, these can provide proof used for discipline!! Rem,ember, just having a boss/ safety man talk to you is considered discilpline and can be written up and placed in file..Also, no union representatation on this. Union was given the middle finger and told ABF spent 80 million on all this. Tough crap, deal with it... Thats representation!!!!I think we need ABFs leadership to represent us.. Its called having a pair..
 
80 million dollars does not trump your Constitutional rights.......

Stand tall, gentlemen...and Ladies....
They know they're on shaky legal grounds, and they need our "permission " to fix it for them.....
 
So, no discussion on this in the past week or so. Anyone else get pressured into attending an info type meeting at your terminal? I refused to attend, based on the level of anger about these, am not sure what to believe, different types of guys said anything from they were told these cameras alert based on eye position ( nodding off) and that so much eye variation from road, ( like looking down at phone, radio) would alert and monitor. These are high tech, not a basic camera. Was also told that just like having an accident and being fired, these can provide proof used for discipline!! Rem,ember, just having a boss/ safety man talk to you is considered discilpline and can be written up and placed in file..Also, no union representatation on this. Union was given the middle finger and told ABF spent 80 million on all this. Tough crap, deal with it... Thats representation!!!!I think we need ABFs leadership to represent us.. Its called having a pair..
No one said any such thing to the union is all I know. If they did the tape would be taken off by now.
 
No one said any such thing to the union is all I know. If they did the tape would be taken off by now.
The people that were at this meeting were told first week of September all trucks will be equipped. Not able to have in certain trucks and not in others ( discriminate), has to be all trucks to begin this. With all due respect to you and others, We do not know nor does our Locals what has been discussed regarding this.. Some of us with some "close to the situation friends" wink wink,, were told ABF told union to pound sand. Agreed to educate and slowly roll out. And with the argument of Constituion? Doesnt apply.. Contractually I think greivances can be filed regarding the language.. but in the end, we dont prevail, because our leadership wont fight for us.. A bunch of old, tired out to pasture hanger-on- ers..
 
The people that were at this meeting were told first week of September all trucks will be equipped. Not able to have in certain trucks and not in others ( discriminate), has to be all trucks to begin this. With all due respect to you and others, We do not know nor does our Locals what has been discussed regarding this.. Some of us with some "close to the situation friends" wink wink,, were told ABF told union to pound sand. Agreed to educate and slowly roll out. And with the argument of Constituion? Doesnt apply.. Contractually I think greivances can be filed regarding the language.. but in the end, we dont prevail, because our leadership wont fight for us.. A bunch of old, tired out to pasture hanger-on- ers..
I’ll wait to see what the hall says. I don’t believe any rumors on here. I hear rumors every contract that we’re paying for our own insurance on this contract. I seem to still have insurance though. My union hall says they’re standing with no cameras no exceptions.
 
I’ll wait to see what the hall says. I don’t believe any rumors on here. I hear rumors every contract that we’re paying for our own insurance on this contract. I seem to still have insurance though. My union hall says they’re standing with no cameras no exceptions.
Just another gloom & doomer, as usual with him
 
Just another gloom & doomer, as usual with him
I think he’s just a realist. Do you really think ABF would make that kind of investment in technology that can’t be used down the road? The Teamsters will cave and their track record should tell you that. Your leaders only care about themselves. Wake up!
 
I think he’s just a realist. Do you really think ABF would make that kind of investment in technology that can’t be used down the road? The Teamsters will cave and their track record should tell you that. Your leaders only care about themselves. Wake up!
Oh look who showed up... the rat himself. Don’t tell us what we at Abf should do, after you sucked off Saia for years then retired miserable with a chip on your shoulder because the camera fuc&ed you! You’re nothing but a phony who defended the company for years on this site, then started a thread how Saia did you wrong.... suck it up bitch....
 
Oh look who showed up... the rat himself. Don’t tell us what we at Abf should do, after you sucked off Saia for years then retired miserable with a chip on your shoulder because the camera fuc&ed you! You’re nothing but a phony who defended the company for years on this site, then started a thread how Saia did you wrong.... suck it up bitch....
Don’t blame me for your beloved Teamsters selling you out. Whatever I did at SAIA has nothing to do with what’s going to happen in regards to ABF using their cameras. You’re simply stupid if you think they won’t be fully activated down the road.
 
Don’t blame me for your beloved Teamsters selling you out. Whatever I did at SAIA has nothing to do with what’s going to happen in regards to ABF using their cameras. You’re simply stupid if you think they won’t be activated down the road.
I won’t get in a dumb argument with someone who hasn’t a clue.... enjoy your retirement....#bashSaia....lol
 
I won’t get in a dumb argument with someone who hasn’t a clue.... enjoy your retirement....#bashSaia....lol
I dont know this guy, nor anyone on here, But can tell you, You have been sold out again and again and again.. What part of reality do some of you not understand? Our Union does not represent us. Excited for Obrien ticket to be elected. Younger more progressive thinkers. The i dont care it doesnt affect me attitude is going away.
 
Let’s wait and see what Ernie and Co. do before we accuse them of selling out again.
I know my former Local (#30) is taking a very anti-camera stance with all the locally negotiated “ white paper” contracts around here....

And I’m sure all you guys listen to the news.........Cameras and surveillance are being featured several times a week,...and not in a good way. Many comparisons to Communist China and their total surveillance of the population........
Kind of hard for an American company to promote cameras when the comparison to Communist facial-recognition tactics are on TV daily.....

And,......once again........For those of us who aren’t working under Employment-At-Will rules.......I highly recommend giving your management and B.A. a letter stating you DO NOT give your employer permission to view, use, distribute or sell.....your personal image.......without your express O.K.......on a “per incident” basis....
In case the Teamsters knuckle under........that letter may provide a.......legal basis........to deny your employer to personally and privately surveil you.....
 
I dont know this guy, nor anyone on here, But can tell you, You have been sold out again and again and again.. What part of reality do some of you not understand? Our Union does not represent us. Excited for Obrien ticket to be elected. Younger more progressive thinkers. The i dont care it doesnt affect me attitude is going away.
I’m not a Hoffa supporter by any means. You said the dual facing cameras were a done deal before they installed them. I’m hopefully optimistic they they will remain the way they currently are.
 
I’m not a Hoffa supporter by any means. You said the dual facing cameras were a done deal before they installed them. I’m hopefully optimistic they they will remain the way they currently are.

Hah! You and I are old......and can remember, I’m sure.......the”cab-under” tractors they tried to foist on drivers........until the Teamsters opened the contract and inserted the sentence:
“No driver shall be required to drive a cab-under tractor”
Article 16, Section 6, (h)....

Companies lost thousands, if not millions,...basing their hopes that they could....force drivers to drive these obviously dangerous things.......

Same thing with the “121” brake anti-lock system......the first one that was Government-mandated the first year it came out(1977).....
And the mandate was removed the next year,...after several high-profile fatalities directly linked to that...untried...system...

We were going to be the “guinea pigs” in the real world.......Companies lost millions on that, too......

So, don’t worry about how the companies are....wringing their hands in dismay,.....over the money they spent already.....
History shows us that.....stupid managerial decisions....ALWAYS cost the companies money......
Yet.....they keep on making.......Stupid Decisions....

The companies’ problem here,.....is that they didn’t thoroughly check with their....Legal Department......
.......before they Willy-Nilly tried to......jam these cameras down our collective throats.......

Otherwise.........we’d have ‘em already.......
 
Hah! You and I are old......and can remember, I’m sure.......the”cab-under” tractors they tried to foist on drivers........until the Teamsters opened the contract and inserted the sentence:
“No driver shall be required to drive a cab-under tractor”
Article 16, Section 6, (h)....

Companies lost thousands, if not millions,...basing their hopes that they could....force drivers to drive these obviously dangerous things.......

Same thing with the “121” brake anti-lock system......the first one that was Government-mandated the first year it came out(1977).....
And the mandate was removed the next year,...after several high-profile fatalities directly linked to that...untried...system...

We were going to be the “guinea pigs” in the real world.......Companies lost millions on that, too......

So, don’t worry about how the companies are....wringing their hands in dismay,.....over the money they spent already.....
History shows us that.....stupid managerial decisions....ALWAYS cost the companies money......
Yet.....they keep on making.......Stupid Decisions....

The companies’ problem here,.....is that they didn’t thoroughly check with their....Legal Department......
.......before they Willy-Nilly tried to......jam these cameras down our collective throats.......

Otherwise.........we’d have ‘em already.......

"Companies lost thousands, if not millions..."? Come on Canary, there were only two of those tractors built by Strick as demos. Trucking companies never invested in them.

"A SPORTS CAR BENEATH A TRAILER: THE STRICK CAB-UNDER
Truck manufacturers have put the cab behind the engine, over the engine, even beside the engine. But it took a trailer manufacturer to put the cab in front of the engine – and under the trailer.

The extraordinary Strick “Cab-Under” was the brainchild of engineer Ronald Zubko, now retired in Farragut, Tenn. “To me, a truck is a tool,” he says. “It’s not something that has to fit a certain aesthetic mold or configuration. It can be whatever it needs to be to get the job done.”

The Cab-Under began as “one of those back-of-the-envelope daydreaming things,” Zubko says. In the mid-1970s, customers were clamoring for ways to get more cubic feet of capacity into trailers without violating strict federal length requirements of 55 feet in the East and 65 feet in the West.

“So I sketched one of these things that showed the driver sitting underneath the trailer,” Zubko says, “and my boss said, ‘That’ll never work.'” For one thing, the boss argued, it would be terribly uncomfortable for the driver.

Shortly thereafter, the boss turned 50, and his wife gave him a 46-inch-high Maserati sports car. “He came in saying, ‘This is the most comfortable thing I ever drove. Let’s look at that design again.'”

Then Zubko and two assistants spent a year dismantling a new International cabover and radically rebuilding it on a special frame. “It was like having a hobby and getting paid for it,” Zubko says.

The result was a heavy truck that wasn’t just a flatbed but a flat everything. The tractor stood only 48 inches high, with 81/2 to 9 inches of ground clearance. The cab was ahead of the front axle, and the Cummins V2 903 engine rode in a low-slung “possum belly” in the middle. The trailer rode on top.

“We could pull standard 27-foot doubles, and the 55-foot overall length limit was nearly all storage,” Zubko says. “That was a lot more cubic content, exactly what our customers were clamoring for, and the economics were quite significant.”

In eight months, Strick calculated, the additional freight hauled per run – especially light cargo – would pay for the cost of the truck. Fuel economy, 7 mpg, was good because the design “cut down on all the drag of a traditional tractor-trailer,” Zubko says.

The first interested customer was a maker of bubble wrap. “Sealed Air toured the company with our Cab-Under,” Zubko says, “and it generated a lot of attention, especially from the police.” At every stop, the driver had to show the paperwork to prove that yes, officer, it is a legal vehicle.

Strick ran exhaustive tests on such things as the truck’s braking ability and the line of sight from the driver’s seat, Zubko says. “You’re basically sitting in a semi-reclining position, like you’re in a sports car. If you’re sitting in the Cab-Under, and you drive up alongside a Corvette Stingray, you’re in exactly the same position.”

For safety, the Cab-Under driver was encased in what Zubko calls “a NASCAR-like roll cage, a half-inch of solid steel,” but that was not enough to keep from running afoul of politics. U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy denounced the Cab-Under as unsafe. Future Public Citizen leader Joan Claybrook, then head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was not impressed when Strick brought the Cab-Under to Capitol Hill for a demonstration.

“The driver had driven it for six months cross country,” Zubko says. “He said it was one of the safest and most comfortable vehicles he’d ever driven.”

The Teamsters took the Cab-Under to the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan, which confirmed everything Zubko knew to be true. “It was a stable vehicle,” Zubko says. “It couldn’t jackknife because there was no kingpin. In a rollover, the driver would be better off than in an articulated vehicle.”

The report also noted downsides. “An impact against a low, rigid barrier such as a retaining wall would be a problem, and in very bad weather, the splash and spray from the road surface would be a visibility problem,” Zubko says. “That was a valid criticism.”

There was talk of using the Cab-Under design in dump applications, or as a ladder platform in emergency vehicles, but Strick ultimately decided to remain a trailer manufacturer, not a truck manufacturer, Zubko says.

Only two Cab-Unders were built. The improved second model, which had an 84,000-pound hauling capacity, was sold to a German who used it to haul flatbed building materials in Europe; it’s now in a German museum. The original is in Zubko’s garage."

“It’s a relic of a bygone era,” he says. “You don’t have a chance to do something like that very often. People are very resistant to change.”

https://www.overdriveonline.com/back-to-the-future/

aad625e708a3b92daf874741028405fd.jpg
 
I dont know this guy, nor anyone on here, But can tell you, You have been sold out again and again and again.. What part of reality do some of you not understand? Our Union does not represent us. Excited for Obrien ticket to be elected. Younger more progressive thinkers. The i dont care it doesnt affect me attitude is going away.
Funny thing, I always read about how the union sold us out, didn't do this or that, just take our dues, no representation.
I never hear about what they did for us, back when we were treated like crap and paid less.
I can remember when guys worked 12 or 14 hard hrs, go home and be called 30 min. later to come back and work
a late arrived trailer.
If they worked 1hr, that's what were paid, 1 hr. didn't matter if they had driven 40 or 50 personal miles home.
On the other hand, I'm sure the union didn't do anything to improve things, the companies did, just because they liked you.
I won't mention about how brother- in- law got all the good pickins, you took what was left.
 
Did you ever see a Ryder Paymaster?
We could have been driving these, if we had accepted them, they were more dangerous than the cab under.
In an accident, you were the first on scene.
I ran one 2 trips, with help from local 71, we decided not to drive the things, 903 had plenty of power, air ride
rode fine, good visibility, but just scary.
After Atl. driver wrecked one, they were gone and never seen again.
 
Funny thing, I always read about how the union sold us out, didn't do this or that, just take our dues, no representation.
I never hear about what they did for us, back when we were treated like crap and paid less.
I can remember when guys worked 12 or 14 hard hrs, go home and be called 30 min. later to come back and work
a late arrived trailer.
If they worked 1hr, that's what were paid, 1 hr. didn't matter if they had driven 40 or 50 personal miles home.
On the other hand, I'm sure the union didn't do anything to improve things, the companies did, just because they liked you.
I won't mention about how brother- in- law got all the good pickins, you took what was left.
That was then, way back then.. We dont have leadership looking out for us anymore. Its universal, Us, UPS, YRC. horrible deals protecting companies before putting feet to the fire while these companies make billions. Remember fellow ABF guys, There is no arcbest, Panther, Fleetnet, and all other entities without the sweat off our ABF backs. In return we get cut wages, cameras in our face, Changes left and right, the list goes on,, and no brushback from our Union. You cant tell me otherwise..
 
"Companies lost thousands, if not millions..."? Come on Canary, there were only two of those tractors built by Strick as demos. Trucking companies never invested in them.

"A SPORTS CAR BENEATH A TRAILER: THE STRICK CAB-UNDER
Truck manufacturers have put the cab behind the engine, over the engine, even beside the engine. But it took a trailer manufacturer to put the cab in front of the engine – and under the trailer.

The extraordinary Strick “Cab-Under” was the brainchild of engineer Ronald Zubko, now retired in Farragut, Tenn. “To me, a truck is a tool,” he says. “It’s not something that has to fit a certain aesthetic mold or configuration. It can be whatever it needs to be to get the job done.”

The Cab-Under began as “one of those back-of-the-envelope daydreaming things,” Zubko says. In the mid-1970s, customers were clamoring for ways to get more cubic feet of capacity into trailers without violating strict federal length requirements of 55 feet in the East and 65 feet in the West.

“So I sketched one of these things that showed the driver sitting underneath the trailer,” Zubko says, “and my boss said, ‘That’ll never work.'” For one thing, the boss argued, it would be terribly uncomfortable for the driver.

Shortly thereafter, the boss turned 50, and his wife gave him a 46-inch-high Maserati sports car. “He came in saying, ‘This is the most comfortable thing I ever drove. Let’s look at that design again.'”

Then Zubko and two assistants spent a year dismantling a new International cabover and radically rebuilding it on a special frame. “It was like having a hobby and getting paid for it,” Zubko says.

The result was a heavy truck that wasn’t just a flatbed but a flat everything. The tractor stood only 48 inches high, with 81/2 to 9 inches of ground clearance. The cab was ahead of the front axle, and the Cummins V2 903 engine rode in a low-slung “possum belly” in the middle. The trailer rode on top.

“We could pull standard 27-foot doubles, and the 55-foot overall length limit was nearly all storage,” Zubko says. “That was a lot more cubic content, exactly what our customers were clamoring for, and the economics were quite significant.”

In eight months, Strick calculated, the additional freight hauled per run – especially light cargo – would pay for the cost of the truck. Fuel economy, 7 mpg, was good because the design “cut down on all the drag of a traditional tractor-trailer,” Zubko says.

The first interested customer was a maker of bubble wrap. “Sealed Air toured the company with our Cab-Under,” Zubko says, “and it generated a lot of attention, especially from the police.” At every stop, the driver had to show the paperwork to prove that yes, officer, it is a legal vehicle.

Strick ran exhaustive tests on such things as the truck’s braking ability and the line of sight from the driver’s seat, Zubko says. “You’re basically sitting in a semi-reclining position, like you’re in a sports car. If you’re sitting in the Cab-Under, and you drive up alongside a Corvette Stingray, you’re in exactly the same position.”

For safety, the Cab-Under driver was encased in what Zubko calls “a NASCAR-like roll cage, a half-inch of solid steel,” but that was not enough to keep from running afoul of politics. U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy denounced the Cab-Under as unsafe. Future Public Citizen leader Joan Claybrook, then head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, was not impressed when Strick brought the Cab-Under to Capitol Hill for a demonstration.

“The driver had driven it for six months cross country,” Zubko says. “He said it was one of the safest and most comfortable vehicles he’d ever driven.”

The Teamsters took the Cab-Under to the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan, which confirmed everything Zubko knew to be true. “It was a stable vehicle,” Zubko says. “It couldn’t jackknife because there was no kingpin. In a rollover, the driver would be better off than in an articulated vehicle.”

The report also noted downsides. “An impact against a low, rigid barrier such as a retaining wall would be a problem, and in very bad weather, the splash and spray from the road surface would be a visibility problem,” Zubko says. “That was a valid criticism.”

There was talk of using the Cab-Under design in dump applications, or as a ladder platform in emergency vehicles, but Strick ultimately decided to remain a trailer manufacturer, not a truck manufacturer, Zubko says.

Only two Cab-Unders were built. The improved second model, which had an 84,000-pound hauling capacity, was sold to a German who used it to haul flatbed building materials in Europe; it’s now in a German museum. The original is in Zubko’s garage."

“It’s a relic of a bygone era,” he says. “You don’t have a chance to do something like that very often. People are very resistant to change.”

https://www.overdriveonline.com/back-to-the-future/

aad625e708a3b92daf874741028405fd.jpg


Very informative, Brother. Strick pushed this program based on projected sales to every major trucking company. Having lived through that era, companies were already putting money into research and projected increased cube revenue.

Strick put a lot into this because of support,.....financial and otherwise,.......from trucking companies.
Trucking management was behind this 100%......

So.....in retrospect........is it a good idea? Was Ted Kennedy, Joan Claybrooke , and the Teamsters right?

Would you drive one? Not just one trip, but always?
After several years of.....fleet “maintenance “?

There were only two prototypes because.........there was a suspicion that putting 10 or 20 of these things into linehaul service......
.........might’ve skewed the accident figures toward the.....”minus” side.......
 
Top