User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-08-2010, 01:45 AM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default Score one for our side

http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_ne.../040610-04.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-08-2010, 02:17 AM
freebirdrfd's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: raynham massachusetts
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Finally a judge with brains. It's about time the company loses... All most companies care about is the money. Most could care less about the driver
__________________
"lady's and gentlemen, they call me freebird, that's right the legiondary freebird, and i'm back in town"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-08-2010, 04:35 AM
cdswans's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sparks, NV
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freebirdrfd View Post
Finally a judge with brains . .
Never mind the judge; that's what I call good lawyering! He may be getting a third of it but I'd say that's money well spent. A tip of the hat to Cynthia, as well, for standing her ground. And somebody give Fredog a pat on the head, too.

Here's the law (excerpted) and allow me to be the first to recommend that it be made a sticky on either the "New Drivers" or the "Rules and Regs" threads . . or both. It deserves broad distribution.

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)

A person may not discharge an employee, or discipline or discriminate against an employee regarding pay, terms, or privileges of employment, because -

(B) the employee refuses to operate a vehicle because -
(i) the operation violates a regulation, standard, or order of the United States related to commercial motor vehicle safety, health, or security; or

(ii) the employee has a reasonable apprehension of serious injury to the employee or the public because of the vehicle's hazardous safety or security condition;
__________________
START FRESH. GET INVOLVED LOCALLY. SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE. NO INCUMBANTS. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2010, 04:37 AM
Windwalker's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Been there and gone...
Posts: 6,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Default

Not bad at all, but even with those $ signs, it's still only a slap on the wrist for Prime. There are also a few other companies that need to sit up and take note.
__________________
( R E T I R E D , and glad of it)
YES ! ! ! There is life after trucking.
a GOOD life

Reply With Quote
Reply






Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.