make a diffrence

[Ray]

Swift well they did it again ive heard it all before but really didnt belive it then it was my turn fired one hour to clean out truck and get off there property got what i could lost the rest they are the coldest people in the world happy new year new company new outlook and now a one man crusade to wake the drivers up to there one sided ways. watch your back i was a senior driver thought i would retire here but they had other plans. the go way beyond screwing you. cleaning toilets would be a step up.

[mitchno1]

that bad what was ther reason,how many years you do for them

[golfhobo]

Swift well they did it again ive heard it all before but really didnt belive it then it was my turn fired one hour to clean out truck and get off there property got what i could lost the rest they are the coldest people in the world happy new year new company new outlook and now a one man crusade to wake the drivers up to there one sided ways. watch your back i was a senior driver thought i would retire here but they had other plans. the go way beyond screwing you. cleaning toilets would be a step up.

Senior driver huh.... wow! And they only gave you ONE HR to clear out? No offense but.... I gotta ask what you DID? Rollover? Fatal accident? Screwed the boss's wife??

Welcome to the board "rookie" and tell us more! (.... But try to use periods more often.) Especially about this "new outlook" campaign.

[Luzon]

Yes, there's obviously a lot more to this story. What got you fired? You are well within your rights to bash on any company you want but it's much more credable when you back up your statements.

[Ray]

They said i purposely swerved in the yard to run down a security guard in a golf cart. I was sleeping at the time with a trainee in his second week also in the truck. We tried to talk to them but not one word was allowed out of our mouths. We asked to see the tape from the parking area cameras but were told they didnt have to show us nothing there minds were made up, a decession has been made your contract has been terminated. Railroaded as for my one man campaingn to let others know Swift is unjust.

[freebirdrfd]

Swift has thousands of employees, Yet you admit that you are the only one "one man campaingn" to come on here and say how "unjust" they are..

[ilikeike]

They said i purposely swerved . . I was sleeping at the time . . We asked to see the tape . .

The Qualcomm and/or your logbooks would be enough to establish who was driving with or without the security tape. I'm sensing there is more to your story than you're letting on. In the unlikely event you're being completely truthful, you do have legal recourse and I'd suggest you speak with the lawyer you hired to review the lease agreement before you signed it. Remember him?

How many miles on your truck? How many months left on the lease? Where can I check it out?

[repete]

They said i purposely swerved in the yard to run down a security guard in a golf cart. I was sleeping at the time with a trainee in his second week also in the truck. We tried to talk to them but not one word was allowed out of our mouths. We asked to see the tape from the parking area cameras but were told they didnt have to show us nothing there minds were made up, a decession has been made your contract has been terminated. Railroaded as for my one man campaingn to let others know Swift is unjust.

Your the trainer so I take the trainee was driving? Ifso your still responsable for his actions. Trainers belong in the jump seat not the sleeper when the trainee is "training" himself!

[Orangetxguy]

They said i purposely swerved in the yard to run down a security guard in a golf cart. I was sleeping at the time with a trainee in his second week also in the truck. We tried to talk to them but not one word was allowed out of our mouths. We asked to see the tape from the parking area cameras but were told they didnt have to show us nothing there minds were made up, a decession has been made your contract has been terminated. Railroaded as for my one man campaingn to let others know Swift is unjust.

Now....the thing is.....WERE YOU asleep, and the trainee was driving the truck and trailer onto the lot? OR....Were both of you asleep in a PARKED truck?

IF you were sleeping in the bunk, while your trainee was driving the truck, and that trainee swerved towards a guard crossing the company's parking lot on a golf cart....or by any other means......Then Swift is within THEIR rights to terminate you. Period. You can not be training adequately, if you are asleep in the bunk.

just sayin

[ilikeike]

Stan and repete . . in the eyes of the law, there is no mentor/trainee hierarchy . . the "trainee" is a 100% responsible CDL holder. The State of _____________ has certified that the so called trainee has satisfied all legal requirements to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. I've read it in a thousand trial transcripts and I'd be happy to cite a few of them here. However Swift chooses to characterize the employment status of either, the trainee is as much responsible for his/her actions as you or I and no actions of the trainee are implicitly the fault of the so called mentor.

Beyond that, it appears that this incident took place on Swift's private property and, if not for the allegation of an apparent commission or attempted commission of a crime, this matter might escape the scrutiny of a public legal authority. If the OP is being truthful, Swift has accused the OP of a crime that Swift's own records could support or refute. If the OP can produce evidence that he was falsely accused and/or unjustly terminated, he'll have a legitimate claim against Swift. Further, if Swift has failed to report this incident to the relevant legal authority, Swift itself can be held culpable for failing to report the crime.

If Ray is being honest, he has a huge case against Swift. Swift isn't that stupid. That's why I say the OP is not being completely honest.

[repete]

Stan and repete . . in the eyes of the law, there is no mentor/trainee hierarchy . . the "trainee" is a 100% responsible CDL holder. The State of _____________ has certified that the so called trainee has satisfied all legal requirements to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. I've read it in a thousand trial transcripts and I'd be happy to cite a few of them here. However Swift chooses to characterize the employment status of either, the trainee is as much responsible for his/her actions as you or I and no actions of the trainee are implicitly the fault of the so called mentor.

Beyond that, it appears that this incident took place on Swift's private property and, if not for the allegation of an apparent commission or attempted commission of a crime, this matter might escape the scrutiny of a public legal authority. If the OP is being truthful, Swift has accused the OP of a crime that Swift's own records could support or refute. If the OP can produce evidence that he was falsely accused and/or unjustly terminated, he'll have a legitimate claim against Swift. Further, if Swift has failed to report this incident to the relevant legal authority, Swift itself can be held culpable for failing to report the crime.

If Ray is being honest, he has a huge case against Swift. Swift isn't that stupid. That's why I say the OP is not being completely honest.

At this point in time "the eyes of the law" have no bearing. Cite whatever case law or stats you want it's not going to make a bit of difference.
What ever happened doesn't really matter they both got canned, plain and simple. Swift decided that they simply were not Swift material! There is not a right to have or keep a job! They got fired for bad driving (see op) As long as they didn't get fired for age/race/sex then so be it. Might suck but it was Swift's call and with the info provided it was the right one in my book

BTW Why do read thousands of trail transcripts? You must have allot of time to kill

[golfhobo]

Stan and repete ... I'm the greatest truckstop lawyer I ever seen, man! Just read my post and ask me for sum citashuns! I've read it in a thousand trial transcripts in "The Detective" magazine while my buttcrack was showing at the truckstop lunch counter. And I say it is...implicitly the fault of the so called mentor.

I LOVE that word... implicitly.... don't you?

If Ray is being honest, he has a huge case against Swift.

Swift isn't that stupid.

That's why I say the OP is not being completely honest

At first glance, this sounds logical... (in a Jarred Loughner kind of way,) but only the middle sentence is demonstrably factual... and even THAT open to debate.

Although the third statement can be reasonably accepted as the testimony of the poster, it cannot be proved by any of the four possible options expressed in the FIRST statement when considered against the presence or absence of veracity in the second statement.

Ergo, it is only an opinion and should not be given the weight of "fact" regardless of the implied pedigree of the holder.

That makes us about "even" dude. Where it goes from here is up to you.

[Orangetxguy]

Stan and repete . . in the eyes of the law, there is no mentor/trainee hierarchy . . the "trainee" is a 100% responsible CDL holder. The State of _____________ has certified that the so called trainee has satisfied all legal requirements to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. I've read it in a thousand trial transcripts and I'd be happy to cite a few of them here. However Swift chooses to characterize the employment status of either, the trainee is as much responsible for his/her actions as you or I and no actions of the trainee are implicitly the fault of the so called mentor.

Beyond that, it appears that this incident took place on Swift's private property and, if not for the allegation of an apparent commission or attempted commission of a crime, this matter might escape the scrutiny of a public legal authority. If the OP is being truthful, Swift has accused the OP of a crime that Swift's own records could support or refute. If the OP can produce evidence that he was falsely accused and/or unjustly terminated, he'll have a legitimate claim against Swift. Further, if Swift has failed to report this incident to the relevant legal authority, Swift itself can be held culpable for failing to report the crime.

If Ray is being honest, he has a huge case against Swift. Swift isn't that stupid. That's why I say the OP is not being completely honest.

Using that very reasoning..........There is NO REASON for the "Trainee" to be in "Training". THE ONLY REASON that companies......ANY COMPANY.......has a "training program" at all, are FEDERAL REGULATIONS and INSURANCE COMPANY REQUIREMENTS.

If not for those two little bumps in the road.....NO TRUCKING COMPANY would have a training program..........It would all be just like it was "Way back when"............... "Yur hired driver. There is the truck, go over there and pick up this load, take it to that there customer. Here is money for fuel and pills to keep you running." "Bring back the truck, the trailer, the pallets....and the receipts. Bring it all back in good shape and we will send you out again."

A "driver trainer" has an obligation to train and train properly. If he or she is not willing to do so, then he or she should decline the opportunity to train.

From the files of "The FMCSA".

391.1 Scope of the rules in this part; additional qualifications; duties of carrier-drivers. (a) The rules in this part establish minimum qualifications for persons who drive commercial motor vehicles as, for, or on behalf of motor carriers. The rules in this part also establish minimum duties of motor carriers with respect to the qualifications of their drivers.
(b) A motor carrier who employs himself/herself as a driver must comply with both the rules in this part that apply to motor carriers and the rules in this part that apply to drivers.
[35 FR 6460, Apr. 22, 1970, as amended at 53 FR 18057, May 19, 1988; 60 FR 38744, July 28, 1995]


391.13 >
Related Links

• Disclaimer
• Interpretation
• Help

Qualification and disqualification of drivers

§391.11 General qualifications of drivers. (a) A person shall not drive a commercial motor vehicle unless he/she is qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle. Except as provided in §391.63, a motor carrier shall not require or permit a person to drive a commercial motor vehicle unless that person is qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle.
(b) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he/she—
(b) (1) Is at least 21 years old;
(b)(2) Can read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records;
(b)(3) Can, by reason of experience, training, or both, safely operate the type of commercial motor vehicle he/she drives;
(b)(4) Is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle in accordance with subpart E—Physical Qualifications and Examinations of this part;
(b) (5) Has a currently valid commercial motor vehicle operator’s license issued only by one State or jurisdiction.
(b)(6) Has prepared and furnished the motor carrier that employs him/her with the list of violations or the certificate as required by §391.27;
(b)(7) Is not disqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle under the rules in §391.15; and
(b)(8) Has successfully completed a driver’s road test and has been issued a certificate of driver’s road test in accordance with §391.31, or has presented an operator’s license or a certificate of road test which the motor carrier that employs him/her has accepted as equivalent to a road test in accordance with §391.33.
[35 FR 6460, Apr. 22, 1970, as amended at 35 FR 17420, Nov. 13, 1970; 35 FR 19181, Dec. 18, 1970; 36 FR 222, Jan. 7, 1971; 36 FR 24220, Dec. 22, 1971; 45 FR 46424, July 10, 1980; 52 FR 20589, June 1, 1987; 59 FR 60323, Nov. 23, 1994; 60 FR 38744, 38745, July 28, 1995; 63 FR 33277, June 18, 1998]






Qualification and disqualification of drivers

§391.13 Responsibilities of drivers. In order to comply with the requirements of §392.9(a) and §393.9 of this subchapter, a motor carrier shall not require or permit a person to drive a commercial motor vehicle unless the person—
(a) Can, by reason of experience, training, or both, determine whether the cargo he/she transports (including baggage in a passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle) has been properly located, distributed, and secured in or on the commercial motor vehicle he/she drives;
(b) Is familiar with methods and procedures for securing cargo in or on the commercial motor vehicle he/she drives


Now........For every "Rule" in the FMCSA handbook.......There is a "criminal code" in 49CFR to back it up. 49CFR is how LEO's write citations for violations.....and Court Judges levy fines and jail time...not by the FMCSA's "Driver Handbook".

[Cluggy619]

Ok....

You were in the bunk asleep. Trainee was with you in the truck. I just have one question.

Was you truck parked? If not, and the trainee was driving while you were asleep in your bunk, then you were justifiably fired for the actions of your rig.

Hard lesson to learn, but next time, stay awake while your trainee is driving. Because it was stupid as hell to allow your trainee to drive YOUR RIG on site, and you in your bunk asleep.

IMHO, you're lucky the trainee didn't get the security guard. Imagine the amount of crap you would have been at that time.

Count your blessings..... It could have been much worse.

[Windwalker]

They said i purposely swerved in the yard to run down a security guard in a golf cart. I was sleeping at the time with a trainee in his second week also in the truck. We tried to talk to them but not one word was allowed out of our mouths. We asked to see the tape from the parking area cameras but were told they didnt have to show us nothing there minds were made up, a decession has been made your contract has been terminated. Railroaded as for my one man campaingn to let others know Swift is unjust.

I've said it before. Trainee means TRAINEE!!!!!! In order to keep the "TRAINEE" out of trouble, the "TRAINER" is not doing ANY TRAINING while sleeping in the bunk. The "team-training" concept is B*##SH*% TRAINING. The trainer's job is to sit in the shotgun seat while the trainee is doing the driving, regardless how many weeks the trainee has been on the job. Since you were asleep, YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE. The trainer is responsible for the trainee's actions while the trainee is doing the driving. Any accidents go on the trainer's record. The "captain" goes down with the ship.

Live and learn, buddy boy. There is absolutely no supervision going on if you're asleep while the trainee is doing the driving. You were sleeping off your responsibility. Now, you get to pay for it and you don't like it. Too bad. I don't feel a bit sorry for you. The only defense you might have is if you were BOTH asleep, and the truck was parked and not moving.

As for (Not So) Swift, we need to find a way to turn BIN LADEN loose on them too.

[Windwalker]

At this point in time "the eyes of the law" have no bearing. Cite whatever case law or stats you want it's not going to make a bit of difference.
What ever happened doesn't really matter they both got canned, plain and simple. Swift decided that they simply were not Swift material! There is not a right to have or keep a job! They got fired for bad driving (see op) As long as they didn't get fired for age/race/sex then so be it. Might suck but it was Swift's call and with the info provided it was the right one in my book

BTW Why do read thousands of trail transcripts? You must have allot of time to kill

It's called "UN-SAFE PRACTICES", and any company can fire any employee, ON THE SPOT, for that. Not just a driver, but ANY EMPLOYEE. No recourse.

[Hardware]

Swift is large... Maybe too large, they forget that your not just a number. >.> My instructor at school came from Swift, and when asked about it , he made little comment.. He really could not give us the full scoop, but he didn't half too.. We all got a good impression the day they sent a scout out to class, This is what the scout said that turned us from even looking in there direction, one, starting miles, 26 cpm, alright I mean there is worse right?? Then she told us that most new hires will be teamed up, Alright maybe that wont be a bad thing for all of us, then she said this 26 cpm, will be split between the team drivers (which means each driver 13 cpm), o0 thats when everyone shook there heads looking around like is this for real?! Then she went on to say they were one of the highest paying in the industry... Let's just say everyone in my class looked for other employment elsewhere.

[VPIDarkAngel]

I nominate this one for a "Where are they now?" special.

[solitary glen]

Swift is large... Maybe too large, they forget that your not just a number. >.> My instructor at school came from Swift, and when asked about it , he made little comment.. He really could not give us the full scoop, but he didn't half too.. We all got a good impression the day they sent a scout out to class, This is what the scout said that turned us from even looking in there direction, one, starting miles, 26 cpm, alright I mean there is worse right?? Then she told us that most new hires will be teamed up, Alright maybe that wont be a bad thing for all of us, then she said this 26 cpm, will be split between the team drivers (which means each driver 13 cpm), o0 thats when everyone shook there heads looking around like is this for real?! Then she went on to say they were one of the highest paying in the industry... Let's just say everyone in my class looked for other employment elsewhere.

I start next week with Swift and my "training" begins with a trainer/mentor driving with me but I will be getting paid a set $$ amount during the 240hour training period, after that, I will be a solo driver. Sounds like that recruiter may have been explaining the "team" concept because that's exactly how I remember it. Teams get paid for all of the miles driven between the two drivers. The truck is running most of the time so it makes sense to split the pay between the two drivers. I'm in Georgia so, maybe up in Michigan they are specifically looking for people that want to be on a team. Not me, get me through the training period and let me go solo.

[One]

1) why are people dumb enough to driver for swift?
2) The trainer is not legally responsible for the actions of a trainee. Esp. when the company policy does not make him responsible.

Also if you find yourself being recruited by a jb hunt or swift slimeball, be sure to have plenty of rotten eggs and tomatoes on hand. Maybe they understand that response better.