MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Very astute observation. An independent business owner doesn't have a corporate guardian angel.
Safety Concerns
- Thread starter MrFedEx
- Start date
Very astute observation. An independent business owner doesn't have a corporate guardian angel.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
No, it's because you are really a FedEx employee. If you were independent, you'd have your own DOT number.
is that in the definition of "independent"? Is it written in the law like that? You see, MFE, I'm not arguing that FedEx has "no control". Simply that the law having to do with "degree of control" is intentionally vague. And it is not.vague because Fred bought off a politician. It's vague the business community at large wants it that way. I know of no lawsuit in which the court has stated that supplying indemnity insurance implied too much control. Maybe you have a case I'm not familiar with?
59 Dano
I just want to make friends!
Some people mistake motion for action.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Some people mistake "Thunder" for a real person and lies for truth. Go figure. Have you created any more supporters lately?
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
No, I called the Quad Cities DOT and told them to keep an eye on the local grubby Ground ISP.
barnyard
KTM rider
That is not true, as I am sure that bbsam has explained, regarding his situation.
There are thousands of owner operators that drive trucks under another companies DOT number. Almost every trucking company does it.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
I know it, but it's fun to pull his chain. Watch for increased scrutiny of all FedEx opcos following Orland.
Route 66
Slapped Upside-da-Head Member
already started
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Good. I hope they start listening to driver concerns.
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
That'd be nice but realistically, management and corporate will nitpick at all the wrong things.
it seems more like you just want to ignore the facts because they don't line up with your Ground narrative. And we have been aware of increased scrutiny at Ground for.a while now. Iowa's enforcement is tough.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
OK, if you say so. Why does Ground have such a bad record then? It seems that you are ignoring the facts.
Because Ground has a contractor model and as such cannot address the issues with the direct approach UPS and Express would. Slow process.
Doc Sorting Dude
Well-Known Member
Before they settle any lawsuit involving this current accident they have dig deep into their coffers to settle that tobacco lawsuit too. Does anyone know if those FDX Freight trucks (or any trucks in our fleet) have a black box? I was told the new Mercedes models maybe outfitted with one.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
I could say the same about you. It suits your purposes to plead "contractor model" all the time like a sheep. It makes it sound like your lord and master FDX has no power over you. FedEx is probably all over Ground about their crap safety record, regardless of their so-called independent status. The increased scrutiny from the Orland tragedy will have the degree of control tightened further, not the other way around.
Again, the law does not, I repeat does not, forbid the company from having ANY control. It is the degree of control that is in question and degree by nature is subjective. I do not doubt one bit that Fred would love to use excessive top down, heavy handed tactics directly with each and every driver, but he can't. Pittsburgh is not always at an advantage with this business model. This is one of those occasions.
barnyard
KTM rider
Getting back to the topic at hand.....
most of the complaints about working too many hours or being pressured to do something unsafe will be responded by, "You are the driver and in the end, you are responsible for working safe."
If you get fired because you refuse to drive a vehicle that will not pass a DOT inspection and you have proof that if does not, you may have an actionable cause.
It is sad, but in most cases, the DOT holds the driver responsible for saying, "no" when it comes to working unsafe.
most of the complaints about working too many hours or being pressured to do something unsafe will be responded by, "You are the driver and in the end, you are responsible for working safe."
If you get fired because you refuse to drive a vehicle that will not pass a DOT inspection and you have proof that if does not, you may have an actionable cause.
It is sad, but in most cases, the DOT holds the driver responsible for saying, "no" when it comes to working unsafe.
DontThrowPackages
Well-Known Member
Agree. technology is ubiquitous. No reason not to at least take pics of VIRs when something like " Brakes making loud noise" is written in the comments. If you chose not to, don't cry when the mechanic has taken that VIR, given you a brand new one and you have an accident. "But I wrote up the brakes...". "Yes but that VIR has gone missing and you have no proof so you take the fall".
Cover yourself!!!
Similar threads
