highspeeds
ENTERTAINMENT USE ONLY
- Credits
- 3
What’s more telling. Is that the state has changed laws because of this.
XPO | XPO Union Thread #2
- Thread starter Fly-by-night
- Start date
What’s more telling. Is that the state has changed laws because of this.
Port truckers win $30 million in wage theft settlements
XPO Logistics, one of the world's largest trucking companies, settled with drivers who had alleged it paid them less than minimum wage.
www.latimes.com
Theft
This is happening way to much with Xpo. They petition their employees to trust them and strike down unionization but this continues.
Last edited:
I'm taking that you mean Ohio.....could you elaborate please....
highspeeds
ENTERTAINMENT USE ONLY
- Credits
- 3
No. I am addressing the article directly. California has changed laws. Making companies that do business with companies using practices like this liable.
That is correct they did
My bad, I didn't read the article because I thought it was one I already read....this one was much better at explaining the (California) laws though...thanks HS and OV.....
ScotchNeat
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 403
This paragraph from the article.
"Trucking companies classify many of their drivers as independent contractors, thus making them ineligible for a host of labor protections, including the ability to collectively bargain for wages."
This is spin. Trucking companies offer to lease equipment to drivers under an agreement to work as independent contractors. Companies don't hire them on as hourly and then force them to work as owners, but that's what this paragraph leads readers to believe. It's on the drivers to decide whether or not they want to work as 1099 or W-2 workers. What's really BS is that some judge decided that a group of people (drivers) who made bad decisions regarding their livelyhood, believed they had standing in the first place to even bring a suit. Had I been the judge, I'd have thrown the suit out and told them tough::
::
"Trucking companies classify many of their drivers as independent contractors, thus making them ineligible for a host of labor protections, including the ability to collectively bargain for wages."
This is spin. Trucking companies offer to lease equipment to drivers under an agreement to work as independent contractors. Companies don't hire them on as hourly and then force them to work as owners, but that's what this paragraph leads readers to believe. It's on the drivers to decide whether or not they want to work as 1099 or W-2 workers. What's really BS is that some judge decided that a group of people (drivers) who made bad decisions regarding their livelyhood, believed they had standing in the first place to even bring a suit. Had I been the judge, I'd have thrown the suit out and told them tough::
::If the case had no legal merit as it applies to the law it would have never made it to court and it would have been dropped. Somewhere Xpo violated a law so it had merit.
You know there are guidelines how to legally call someone an "independent" contractor...I'm willing to bet there were enough boxes checked for the judge to say no they are employees...are they free to take loads from other companies besides XPO...I'm betting not....does XPO require them have the XPO name on the truck? Most likely....are they made to wear an XPO uniform? I dont know the answer to that but I bet they do...can they set their own hours like other business owners? so how independent are they really? As far as the contracts they signed....XPO has attorneys that write them and they stay right on the edge of the law (although they do sometimes go over the edge as seen in this suit) and these port drivers are poor inner city people without the means to hire a lawyer against a multibillion dollar company....this is why we have laws and unions to protect us against the abuses of predators like XPO...
Right to the edge of the law is 100% on point and correct
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
OK first lets leave California law out of this because many including me know this county would be better off if it just slid into the ocean.
There so much stuff you are missing about being an O/O and the different types of O/O. In the next few post I'll try to break it down for you to understand.
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
OK this is the big one. First there are true O/O and O/O that sign on with a company
True O/O have there own a Truck and there own DOT number, and MC number better know as "Operating Authority"
A sign on O/O or Lease Driver own or lease a truck and uses the company they sign on with DOT number and MC number.
Now here's were a company can control what loads and who you pull for. When your a true O/O you can pull for anyone since it's your DOT and MC number. Where as the sign on O/O does not have that right since he is using the company he signed on with DOT and MC numbers and the company has the say. Now they can't force him to take loads they offer but remember he can't take or pull loads from someone else unless the company he is signed on with approves it.
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
Yes they can. Most O/O are there own small business. It all depends on how much you want to make. Remember most of these large trucking companies started out as small O/O business.
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
That depends on the contract you sign. Like I posted before if you what to be a true O/O the get your own DOT and MC number.
You must remember that some contract also have discounts on fuel, insurance, and maintenance which many also effect who you can haul for. Other thing are do you use there trailer or do you own one. There is so much different stuff that can be place in the contract for O/O that you as an owner need to know, read, and understand. No one forced then to sign.
Thank you for breaking it down so I can "understand"....you can't leave California Law out of this because that is where the suit is filed, so their laws are the guiding factor ....also no I dont believe we would be better off with a state sliding off into the ocean....you have heard of states rights correct? They have every right as a state to be as liberal as they want, if the majority agree with it....I actually do understand because my stepfather was an owner operator for a time so I got a pretty good understanding of what you have posted...and I have been in this business for about 20 years....the story I was commenting on involved port drivers leased on with XPO, so all this stuff you said Is irrelevant about real O/O as these people obviously leased on with XPO...
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
Now like I said before I have not read or know whats in the contract they signed. I do know that both XPO Port Services and XPO Logistic Cartage have their own DOT and MC number. You can look it up online at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/.
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
Yes but some on here don't know. So yes they leased on to XPO and yes the case was in Califorina. I just point out that there contract can have restriction in it and was trying to not include the Cal. law in the different in a True O/O and a lease/ sign on driver. You want to be a independent O/O then don't lease and have you own DOT and MC numbers. You were the one asking if they were "free to take loads from other companies besides XPO" and " does XPO require them have the XPO name on the truck? Most likely" well when you use XPO DOT and MC number then yes.
Yes I was asking that because I'm quite certain that is how the judge determined they are employees.
Fly-by-night
Only when you care to send the very best
- Credits
- 744
I guessing as it pertain to Cal law...Because if I lease on here with a company on the east coast as an O/O I not a company employee. I guess that why so many O/O refuse to got to Cal.
Sheldon Cooper
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Heard Albany 16-13 yes vote