[Malaki86]

According to Swift's policy, that's exactly what you have - an Unsatisfactory Safety Record. Period. Swift isn't blackballing you for stating the FACTS in their report on you.

[lilchemmaster]

Originally Posted by Malaki86

According to Swift's policy, that's exactly what you have - an Unsatisfactory Safety Record. Period. Swift isn't blackballing you for stating the FACTS in their report on you.

Really? Where does it say that? And, why do they have other drivers still on the road that have actually crashed trucks, destroyed trailers, and done far worse stuff than what I did, if that's their "so-called" policy? Because, nowhere on my termination papers did it state "Unsatisfactory Safety Record", as the cause of Termination. If they list it as one thing on the termination papers and then list it as something else on the DAC Report, then it is Blackballing.

It states on the Termination Papers, "Multiple Crashes", not "Unsatisfactory Safety Record". They could have listed Multiple Crashes on the DAC Report. Yet, they listed the other phrase, which they know causes other companies not to hire people. And, see, I've spoken with a lawyer that even said that the phrase, "Unsatisfactory Safety Record" is used because it's an Objective viewpoint statement. And, the Company knows that they can get away with it. However, if they were to put "Multiple Crashes" on the DAC Report, they would have to provide an exact account of what really happened. And, it would cause them to have to admit that their trainers were incompetant, which would cause them to have to acknowledge that they didn't abide by their own standards and policies. So, it's their way of getting out of any-and-all responsibility.

[LogBook]

try criegslist for jobs/truck driving. look for smale 5-10 truck companys, they mostly dont pull dac. dont tell company about theUnsatisfactory Safety Record on yr dac, dont lie to them. swift let you go becouse a miner unreportable acc/in a truck stop.

[lilchemmaster]

Originally Posted by LogBook

try criegslist for jobs/truck driving. look for smale 5-10 truck companys, they mostly dont pull dac. dont tell company about theUnsatisfactory Safety Record on yr dac, dont lie to them. swift let you go becouse a miner unreportable acc/in a truck stop.

I'll see what I can come up with and see how everything works out. Thanks for the advice.

[chris1]

Originally Posted by lilchemmaster

Really? Where does it say that? And, why do they have other drivers still on the road that have actually crashed trucks, destroyed trailers, and done far worse stuff than what I did, if that's their "so-called" policy? Because, nowhere on my termination papers did it state "Unsatisfactory Safety Record", as the cause of Termination. If they list it as one thing on the termination papers and then list it as something else on the DAC Report, then it is Blackballing.

It states on the Termination Papers, "Multiple Crashes", not "Unsatisfactory Safety Record". They could have listed Multiple Crashes on the DAC Report. Yet, they listed the other phrase, which they know causes other companies not to hire people. And, see, I've spoken with a lawyer that even said that the phrase, "Unsatisfactory Safety Record" is used because it's an Objective viewpoint statement. And, the Company knows that they can get away with it. However, if they were to put "Multiple Crashes" on the DAC Report, they would have to provide an exact account of what really happened. And, it would cause them to have to admit that their trainers were incompetant, which would cause them to have to acknowledge that they didn't abide by their own standards and policies. So, it's their way of getting out of any-and-all responsibility.

The reason it says Unsatisfactory Safety Record on DAC is because DAC is a point and click entry. You can only enter what is availible. There is no option of Multiple Crashes. There is no option of freeform writing. As if that would make any difference. Each accident/incident is entered seperate by location,date,DOT recordable,and type. You had the accidents so how is that "blackballing"?

[lilchemmaster]

Originally Posted by chris1

The reason it says Unsatisfactory Safety Record on DAC is because DAC is a point and click entry. You can only enter what is availible. There is no option of Multiple Crashes. There is no option of freeform writing. As if that would make any difference. Each accident/incident is entered seperate by location,date,DOT recordable,and type. You had the accidents so how is that "blackballing"?

It does make a difference to the company that was willing to hire me. They even stated that the phrase, "Unsatisfactory Safety Report", IS the only thing that is keeping me from getting hired. They understand about the three acc/inc, but that ONE phrase is the reason they won't hire me. They specifically told me that if those three words were NOT on the DAC Report, they would hire me and I would be able to get trained by the person willing to train me. They explicitly said that if I could even get it changed to "other", it would make a difference on the decision. They even told that to the person that wants to train me.

They could have left that blank, while still leaving the acc/inc on the DAC Report. But, instead, they chose to put it on under the heading, "Work Record". Therefore, when anyone that actually looks at my DAC Report, they assume that I am unsafe and a threat to other people on the road. That's why, it's considered misleading. Because, at NO time, was there anybody in danger, no freight was damaged, and all loads were delivered where they were going. But, people think the exact opposite when they see that phrase. However, I did everything possible to be as safe as possible, by sending in my GOALs and following all other company policies to the best of my ability. So, no, I'm not an unsafe driver, as that phrase leads people to believe. I made mistakes, just like pretty much every new driver out there did, at one time or another, when they were first starting out. And, the company that I was looking at getting hired by even said that minor trailer bumps happen out on the road, on a regular basis. But, it doesn't make a person an unsafe driver and shouldn't be considered that. Yet, that one phrase makes it sound worse than it really is.

[chris1]

If there are accidents/incidents you can not leave it blank,enter other,enter satisfactory,ect. I don't think you know how the info is entered. And you are still trying to justify your actions.(no one was in danger,no freight was damaged,loads were delivered)

[lilchemmaster]

Originally Posted by chris1

If there are accidents/incidents you can not leave it blank,enter other,enter satisfactory,ect. I don't think you know how the info is entered. And you are still trying to justify your actions.(no one was in danger,no freight was damaged,loads were delivered)

So, what you're saying is: "A DAC Report can ONLY be filled in with 'Unsatisfactory Safety Record', if there are acc/inc". Considering, you're implying that there's nothing else that can be entered into the area or leave it blank. I find that hard to believe. I'm more apt to believe the company that was going to hire me, had it not been for the blackballing that Swift is doing.

It's what the company told me, as well. That phrase makes it sound as if I wasn't safe and that I was or will be a danger on the road, which is blatantly false!!! So, I don't have to justify nothing. I'm stating the obvious.

[Fozzy]

My My My... I was not going to respond to this discussion but then saw this little tidbit of idiocy. Lets all try and learn something from this shall we?

the conversation got changed, due to the praise for the company's bottom dollar, by Fozzy.

When there are so many trailers on the road that seem to have so much damage to them, it's hard to actually agree with your point. It appears that the money received from the insurance companies don't seem to go towards fixing any of the damage done, especially the minor scrapes. So, when I see the fixing getting done, I'll think as you do.

Well, who says that the damage has to be repaired or even reported to an insurance agency at all especially when the company has high deductibles or even are self-insured? The point is that this is their equipment and it was damaged by YOU and that’s what you seem to have an issue with. The fact that they didn’t pay for your damage or prove to you that they did is irrelevant. They own the equipment and they paid for the equipment and they are the ones who are going to lose the money on the equipment for the damage done to it.

Instead, I'm thinking along the lines of companies holding their trainers accountable, instead of the students that don't get taught what they should.

At what point does this end? Why not make the trainers mommy pay for your mistakes? Stand up and be a professional for a few moments. The TRAINER didn’t run into the fixed object now did they? The Trainer was supposed to receive a student that could drive down the street, stay in a lane, make safe and proper left and right hand turns and have a basic understanding and grasp of simple backing maneuvers. You obviously didn’t and of course want to blame everyone BUT the person who obviously wasn’t paying attention OR was a generally poor candidate to begin with. You got you chance and you blew it! Not the trainers, Not his mommy, not the company and not the Illuminatti. Grow some balls and man up!

Is it possible that there really are inadequate drivers out there, because of the stupidity, ignorance, and blatant disregard of the trainers to make sure that their student is capable of doing the job correctly?

There are plenty of adequate drivers and driver trainers out there.. then there are people who simple don’t pack the skills or the attention to detail (like where the fixed objects are) that prove themselves a danger to the general public and are not able to just knock things down until they get it right.

Isn't it the responsibility of the companies to make sure that EVERYONE that is trained can do the job properly? Both answers are YES!!! Beside that, you have no idea as to what type of damage was done or any of the facts. You're basing your judgment on a generalization of protecting the company's bottom dollar, instead of reliability of the trainers to make sure proper training is done, so there is a far less amount of accidents, by newer drivers. Companies should be held accountable, as well.

So we get it.. everyone should be responsible for the damage done by a driver except the driver.. Riiiiight… The companies train and have trained hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people with well documented training programs. The programs are set up for the average adult to be successful in operating a tractor trailer in the real world. This does not mean that there is no further education and learning to be gathered by the student or fledgling driver. They will still make mistakes as well as the experienced drivers. I am making my “judgment” based on the fact that I have been in practically every side of this industry and know that there are liabilities and responsibilities to the bottom line were as people who seem to have a habit of repeatedly crashing into sh*t never seem to have the capability of understanding that fact. Drivers who show a pattern of running into things are not being “blackballed”, they are being EVALUATED as a risk that they present to carriers. If you want to continue to blame others for your poor driving skills.. so be it, but the other carriers and the general public deserve to be warned that you cannot seem to drive very well.

[repete]

Originally Posted by lilchemmaster

. They even stated that the phrase, "Unsatisfactory Safety Report", IS the only thing that is keeping me from getting hired.

So if we could just change those three words. Do you think "unsafe to drive" or "will not rehire" or "can not back" would be any better? Of course not! I'm willing to assume you had a bad trainig situation BUT you still had 3 accidents in a short time, that is what's really keeping you from getting hired! The people that say they'd hire you IF DAC didn't have those 3 words are being nice to you but have real intention of hireing you. Sorry to be so blunt but thats tha way it goes.