Major Fail At Our Ground Terminal Already

[Bounty]

Admittedly, I was in that camp for a while. After researching the topic I went back and self-audited. I keep my routes right around 40-45 hours per week so it wasn't too bad. Writing those checks for back pay wasn't fun.

If you really did that kudos to you, but I'm sure you are the only one. Most contractors are ignorant to labor laws and just sign anything x puts in front of them.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The motor carrier exemption does not preclude you from paying your employees for every minute worked. Many of you guys do not compensate your employees beyond 40 hours of work in their paid salary.

Let's say for arguments sake you pay 1 driver $600 a week for 45 hours of work which includes overtime pay. Now if that driver goes over that 45 hours by one hour and you do not compensate him for that one hour that is stealing from the employee. This type of scenario happens on a much bigger scale at ground.

 

[M I Indy]

I would guess most are not following labor laws in most terminals across the country.

And why not? X has clouded the employee issue since day 1, telling contractors in HD when I started that they didn't need commercial plates, become an llc, etc. But, they made sure they covered their arse by filing safe harbor papers, all the while telling contractors they had over 100 labor decisions backing their model, which was a LIE. X creates the confusion. Sammy says X wouldn't leave it that open, BS, they are covered, will claim they are not the watch dog for the thousands of businesses the gov't allowed, they (X) are SAFE in the harbor. Sammy on the hand, is up the creek, with a link to the lawyers that represent Protective, oops, that department has been eliminated. X will maybe give him a coupon, then. Small businesses paired with mega corporations can lead to big ramifications for those small businesses.

 

[Bounty]

Let's say for arguments sake you pay 1 driver $600 a week for 45 hours of work which includes overtime pay. Now if that driver goes over that 45 hours by one hour and you do not compensate him for that one hour that is stealing from the employee. This type of scenario happens on a much bigger scale at ground.

Every single day!

 

[STFXG]

Let's say for arguments sake you pay 1 driver $600 a week for 45 hours of work which includes overtime pay. Now if that driver goes over that 45 hours by one hour and you do not compensate him for that one hour that is stealing from the employee. This type of scenario happens on a much bigger scale at ground.

Correct. Pay for that period would be:

600 for 45 hours straight time.
33.34 OT for the 5 hours over 40
20 (13.34*1.5) for the 1 hour over 45

653.34 total pay for the week.

If they are nonexempt that is.

Anything less would be stealing his/her earned wages.

 

[Route 66]

653 bucks for 45 hrs. ball-bustin' work?....oyy, that hurts

 

[It will be fine]

Let's say for arguments sake you pay 1 driver $600 a week for 45 hours of work which includes overtime pay. Now if that driver goes over that 45 hours by one hour and you do not compensate him for that one hour that is stealing from the employee. This type of scenario happens on a much bigger scale at ground.

I like how you've been proven horribly wrong, have no idea what the actual law is or how contractors pay their drivers, yet still claim that this scenario happens on a big scale at Ground. How does someone speak with such authority when they have no actual knowledge?

 

[STFXG]

653 bucks for 45 hrs. ball-bustin' work?....oyy, that hurts

46 hours

 

[Turdferguson]

46 hours

$14.25 an hour

 

[MAKAVELI]

I like how you've been proven horribly wrong, have no idea what the actual law is or how contractors pay their drivers, yet still claim that this scenario happens on a big scale at Ground. How does someone speak with such authority when they have no actual knowledge?

The truth hurts bro.

 

[Bounty]

I like how you've been proven horribly wrong, have no idea what the actual law is or how contractors pay their drivers, yet still claim that this scenario happens on a big scale at Ground. How does someone speak with such authority when they have no actual knowledge?

I promise I have actual knowledge .

 

[It will be fine]

The truth hurts bro.

The truth that I am correct?

 

[bbsam]

And why not? X has clouded the employee issue since day 1, telling contractors in HD when I started that they didn't need commercial plates, become an llc, etc. But, they made sure they covered their arse by filing safe harbor papers, all the while telling contractors they had over 100 labor decisions backing their model, which was a LIE. X creates the confusion. Sammy says X wouldn't leave it that open, BS, they are covered, will claim they are not the watch dog for the thousands of businesses the gov't allowed, they (X) are SAFE in the harbor. Sammy on the hand, is up the creek, with a link to the lawyers that represent Protective, oops, that department has been eliminated. X will maybe give him a coupon, then. Small businesses paired with mega corporations can lead to big ramifications for those small businesses.

I would agree with you except for the new in vogue idea of "co-employees". That coupled with the fact that if this ever became.a huge issue with thousands of drivers filing on hundreds of contractors, X would be scrutinized to an incredible extent. Not bbsam inc. FDX. Why? Because that's where the money is and bankrupting the small business does nothing to rectify the situation.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The truth that I am correct?

The truth is, your scam works best by paying a salary and stealing time from your drivers.

 

[M I Indy]

I would agree with you except for the new in vogue idea of "co-employees". That coupled with the fact that if this ever became.a huge issue with thousands of drivers filing on hundreds of contractors, X would be scrutinized to an incredible extent. Not bbsam inc. FDX. Why? Because that's where the money is and bankrupting the small business does nothing to rectify the situation.

I would agree with you, but, that " co-employer " thing, you really want to throw yourself on that sword. You are going to count on gov't to fix it. Ha! It'll be Sammy vs. X, will you be able to afford the risk that the law will do the right thing. X will be scrutinized? By whom? Maybe, for a 24 hr news cycle. You think J Q Public is gonna care about several thousand contractors that conspired with X, albeit somewhat unwittingly. You sound like the contractors you call "whiners". You're a corporation, why didn't you file the same protections? Didn't your partner tell you? Why? They're your customer, NOT your partner is why! Guess you were too weak, just like you call others. Oh the irony!

 

[bbsam]

I would agree with you, but, that " co-employer " thing, you really want to throw yourself on that sword. You are going to count on gov't to fix it. Ha! It'll be Sammy vs. X, will you be able to afford the risk that the law will do the right thing. X will be scrutinized? By whom? Maybe, for a 24 hr news cycle. You think J Q Public is gonna care about several thousand contractors that conspired with X, albeit somewhat unwittingly. You sound like the contractors you call "whiners". You're a corporation, why didn't you file the same protections? Didn't your partner tell you? Why? They're your customer, NOT your partner is why! Guess you were too weak, just like you call others. Oh the irony!

I once had a contract relations jack wagon try and tell me X is my customer. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's not how it works. They are the principal, bbsam inc. is an agent. Big difference. I would have expected you to understand that.

 

[Cactus]

I once had a contract relations jack wagon try and tell me X is my customer. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's not how it works. They are the principal, bbsam inc. is an agent. Big difference. I would have expected you to understand that.

Did you tell contract relations to kiss your ass?

 

[bbsam]

Did you tell contract relations to kiss your ass?

Absolutely.

 

[M I Indy]

I once had a contract relations jack wagon try and tell me X is my customer. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's not how it works. They are the principal, bbsam inc. is an agent. Big difference. I would have expected you to understand that.

Again, I would agree, but, that's not how it went down in the courtroom I sat in, wasn't a factor in the case. X got that into the record, didn't make difference there, might make on now though. You expect the truth! Ha, that's NOT how it works. This is our Court system, BIG difference. You will have to prove it, make it the truth, and change X's allowed testimony. I like your interpretation, just show the proof. I would have expected you to have that testimony in your cloud, hidden behind most of the misinformation you gather and spew. It seems by your nervousness you are starting to understand, probably not, you still believe in your partner that isn't your partner

 

[bbsam]

Again, I would agree, but, that's not how it went down in the courtroom I sat in, wasn't a factor in the case. X got that into the record, didn't make difference there, might make on now though.

So...you sat in one (1) court room...X number of years ago...and would presume to know how a future possibly massive class action suit would end? Are you really that delusional?