What's new

FedEx Freight | Other News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legal stuff: A little bit CRAZY. :scratchhead: :popcorn:

Chicago Fair Workweek Law Set to Impose Sweeping Predictable Workweek Requirements

https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...nt News&utm_source=Robly.com&utm_medium=email

"...will require covered employers to, among other things, provide employees with at least 10 days’ advance notice of their work schedules and provide additional compensation to employees for any unscheduled changes to their scheduled work hours."

New York State Passes Bill Allowing Employees to Place a Lien on Employer’s Property for Accusation of Wage Violations

https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...nt News&utm_source=Robly.com&utm_medium=email

"Importantly, under the Act, the employee would not have to prove that he or she was underpaid to file the lien. The lien could be filed on the basis of an allegation of underpayment."
 
SwampRatt said:
Pets Can Help Fleet Recruitment Efforts and Boost Driver Satisfaction

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/pet...uitment-efforts-and-boost-driver-satisfaction

“We went back and forth allowing pets, banning pets, but ultimately back to allowing pets again,” said Michael Fisk, Roadmaster Group’s director of marketing, recruitment and development. “Ultimately, the benefit is stronger recruiting and retention.”

While many fleets welcome drivers’ four-legged friends, they typically limit them to cats and dogs.

“No pygmy goats, no snakes, no parakeets and no monkeys,” said Michael Hinz, senior vice president of sales and operations for Joplin, Mo.-based CFI.
Click to expand...
Now there is a big reason they pay a , senior Vice President,the big money to make a corporate decision on what pets may, or may not be allowed... I wonder if Transport Topics will follow up with comments from the ATA on how this will help their so called driver shortage.
 
BIG R GUY said:
Now there is a big reason they pay a , senior Vice President,the big money to make a corporate decision on what pets may, or may not be allowed... I wonder if Transport Topics will follow up with comments from the ATA on how this will help their so called driver shortage.
Click to expand...

I hear good things about pet monkeys, when it comes to steering a truck!
 
FMCSA increases fines for trucking regs violations [across the board]

https://www.ccjdigital.com/fmcsa-in...a3c973&utm_term=newsletter-2-daily-position-1

Here's a few:
FMCSA-fines-2019-2019-07-30-11-20-500x463.png

FMCSA-fines-2019-1-2019-07-30-11-20-500x453.png
FMCSA-fines-2019-2-2019-07-30-11-20-500x435.png
 
SwampRatt said:
FMCSA increases fines for trucking regs violations [across the board]

https://www.ccjdigital.com/fmcsa-increases-fines-for-trucking-regs-violations/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=07-31-2019&utm_campaign=Commercial Carrier Journal&ust_id=124f9551466b2c5785e539d1cda3c973&utm_term=newsletter-2-daily-position-1

Here's a few:
FMCSA-fines-2019-2019-07-30-11-20-500x463.png

FMCSA-fines-2019-1-2019-07-30-11-20-500x453.png
FMCSA-fines-2019-2-2019-07-30-11-20-500x435.png
Click to expand...
Would also like to see the Feds step in and supersede state laws, on state employees who issue CDL’s illegally, and the ones obtaining them, with huge fines, and or jail time.
 
Update – Wednesday, July 31: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced in a Federal Register notice that is has extended the comment period for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comments about regulations regarding autonomous trucks.



https://www.overdriveonline.com/dot-opens-comment-period-on-autonomous-vehicle-regulations/


I’m sure this has already been posted, but there’s a really easy link to comment on this absurdity in that article.

Please pass it on.
 
V. U.S. DOT Role in Vehicle Automation
As published on October 4, 2018, “Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0,” (AV 3.0) explains that the Department's role in transportation automation is to ensure the safety and mobility of the traveling public while fostering economic growth. On October 9, 2018, the Department requested public comment on the document (83 FR 50746). The comment period ended on December 3, 2018.

The Federal government will play a significant role in ensuring that automated vehicles can be safely and effectively integrated into the existing transportation system, alongside conventional vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other road users.


https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0037-0131
 
truckingBORED said:
V. U.S. DOT Role in Vehicle Automation
As published on October 4, 2018, “Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0,” (AV 3.0) explains that the Department's role in transportation automation is to ensure the safety and mobility of the traveling public while fostering economic growth. On October 9, 2018, the Department requested public comment on the document (83 FR 50746). The comment period ended on December 3, 2018.

The Federal government will play a significant role in ensuring that automated vehicles can be safely and effectively integrated into the existing transportation system, alongside conventional vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other road users.


https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0037-0131
Click to expand...
My one question is who is held responsible when the computer or electronics crash. Saw a truck/car is involved in fatal accident is the driver responsible?
 
citydog said:
My one question is who is held responsible when the computer or electronics crash. Saw a truck/car is involved in fatal accident is the driver responsible?
Click to expand...

Just one?

Will likely be many a lengthy court battle... Who was negligent? Was the system flawed? Was it preventable, and by who? What about the use of the remote driver? Can he/she reasonably be held responsible WHEN (not if) the connection is lost? I think not.

Certainly the carrier and their insurance company will be 1st in line. Manufacturers and drivers will also be named in the law suits.

I suspect the massive costs will ultimately be the prohibitive factor (for the foreseeable future), beyond certain dedicated lanes (much like a rail operation). Not to mention the chaotic transition period where human nature attempts to take advantage of the the technology. I doubt most of us will ever see the large scale use of the technology, on public irregular routes. The next Gen.? I would not bet against it.
 
Swift ordered to pay CRST $15 million for recruiting drivers under contract

https://www.ccjdigital.com/swift-or...tm_term=newsletter-2-daily-position-top-story

"CRST alleged that Swift made repeated attempts to hire drivers who had completed CDL training via CRST’s in-house training program, which the carrier provides for free so long as drivers agree to drive for the company for at least 10 months after completing the training."

"In an order issued July 23, a jury agreed with CRST’s claims, awarding them $3 million for Swift’s interference with CRST’s contracts, $5 million in punitive damages and $7.5 million for the unjust enrichment counts — a total of $15.5 million."
 
BIG R GUY said:
Now there is a big reason they pay a , senior Vice President,the big money to make a corporate decision on what pets may, or may not be allowed... I wonder if Transport Topics will follow up with comments from the ATA on how this will help their so called driver shortage.
Click to expand...
I can see how/why allowing pets improves recruiting/retention, but only in the world of truckload/longhaul carriers. The story does not mention a number associated with the degree of improvement as a result of the policy. It always comes down to a number. Always.
 
SwampRatt said:
I can see how/why allowing pets improves recruiting/retention, but only in the world of truckload/longhaul carriers. The story does not mention a number associated with the degree of improvement as a result of the policy. It always comes down to a number. Always.
Click to expand...
Always an angle to try, so they don’t have to pay someone better wages. You know, like;
Pets allowed
Detention after 2-3 hours free
Pay on practical miles? What the hell does that mean anyway?
I love this one, 1099 biweekly pay
Bonus’ for clean level 1 inspection
Pay on percentage of invoice
Friendly dispatch, in the language of your choice
Free $10,000 life insurance. WOW.
Or, earn UP to $60,000-$80,000 a year. Which actually means $45,000.
 
SwampRatt said:
Swift ordered to pay CRST $15 million for recruiting drivers under contract

https://www.ccjdigital.com/swift-ordered-to-pay-crst-15-million-for-recruiting-drivers-under-contract/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=08-02-2019&utm_campaign=Commercial Carrier Journal&ust_id=124f9551466b2c5785e539d1cda3c973&utm_term=newsletter-2-daily-position-top-story

"CRST alleged that Swift made repeated attempts to hire drivers who had completed CDL training via CRST’s in-house training program, which the carrier provides for free so long as drivers agree to drive for the company for at least 10 months after completing the training."

"In an order issued July 23, a jury agreed with CRST’s claims, awarding them $3 million for Swift’s interference with CRST’s contracts, $5 million in punitive damages and $7.5 million for the unjust enrichment counts — a total of $15.5 million."
Click to expand...
I guess Swift can’t handle Moldovanian drivers cuz no one tries to recruit from Coop.....
 
Big Dave said:
I guess Swift can’t handle Moldovanian drivers cuz no one tries to recruit from Coop.....
Click to expand...
From talking with immigrant Coop drivers, most say they would go to work nowhere else because of Coop’s pay bonus’ for every tunnel, or low bridge they avoid. One veteran I spoke with, who is from Pakistan, said he was recently inducted into the, Big Dave Safety Excellence Team for avoiding low clearance’s, and boardwalks in the Atlantic City area for just over 3 months!
 
SwampRatt said:
Just one?

Will likely be many a lengthy court battle... Who was negligent? Was the system flawed? Was it preventable, and by who? What about the use of the remote driver? Can he/she reasonably be held responsible WHEN (not if) the connection is lost? I think not.

Certainly the carrier and their insurance company will be 1st in line. Manufacturers and drivers will also be named in the law suits.

I suspect the massive costs will ultimately be the prohibitive factor (for the foreseeable future), beyond certain dedicated lanes (much like a rail operation). Not to mention the chaotic transition period where human nature attempts to take advantage of the the technology. I doubt most of us will ever see the large scale use of the technology, on public irregular routes. The next Gen.? I would not bet against it.
Click to expand...
I think I was short sided with my response. My biggest concern is the drivers being responsible for electronic/computers failure. The Bendix system we have now picks up off ramp signs. What happens when the truck has total control of the system and you picks up on that sign. Roll a trailer on top of a four-wheeler? Is the driver responsible for this error? There is so many questions about this system. Like @SwampRatt said don’t think we will see this in our careers.
 
citydog said:
I think I was short sided with my response. My biggest concern is the drivers being responsible for electronic/computers failure. The Bendix system we have now picks up off ramp signs. What happens when the truck has total control of the system and you picks up on that sign. Roll a trailer on top of a four-wheeler? Is the driver responsible for this error? There is so many questions about this system. Like @SwampRatt said don’t think we will see this in our careers.
Click to expand...

Said the average German in the 1930’s as they watched the infrastructure being laid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top