I can see why he is so depressed, he lost his sobriety and his job. All he can do is start over and keep fighting the disease that he has.

He sounds like a good person, but he has a disease of alcoholism. It honestly sounds like he was drinking either on the job or very soon before being on the job. Depending on what Swift puts on his DAC, he may have ruined his chances at this career...but don't let his mistakes prevent you from having a great career as a truck driver.

Thank God no one was injured, and hopefully Tim will maintain his sobriety and find the right career for himself. Maybe eventually he'll even get another shot at trucking but obviously right now it was not meant to be.

He lost a job that lit him up, his sobriety, his self-worth, most likely getting to stay in touch with his sons if he goes back to drinking, and his present relationship. Could it be anymore rock-bottom than that? Time will tell.

Good move. Check every angle available to you, and use Swift as a last resort. I'd have gone the Swift route, too, but only if everything else was a wash. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

Best wishes.

"inmate1577":

First of all who is a shipper/receiver to decide that someone reeks of alcohol?

Useless:

As a shipper/receiver, I have authority and control over who is permitted on my premises, under what conditions or circumstances they will be permitted to be at my place of business, and under what circumstances I may choose th order them to leave. I do not need ANYONE'S "Permission" to determine if a driver smells of alcohol. As far as "Authority" is concerned, just who do you believe is empowered to grant or deny such "Authority"??

As a shipper, I am trusting a company and a driver with my product which is being delivered to one of my CLIENTS!! Would I allow a driver who reeked of alcohol to drive off with a load??? Not No, But HELL No!!

Inmate1577:

Yeah, thats a crock of crap. The shipper or receiver has no authority to decide who "reeks of alcohol" he may insist on a BAL test, but that is only with his employees.

Useless:

Inmate, where are you getting your information?? A crock of crap?? Shipper has no authority?? According to whom?? Care to document a source here?? The shipper or the consignee has authority over every employee and every vendor on company premisis. If a driver has the smell of alcohol on him, the shipper/consignee is clearly within his right to call the trucking co, and LEO. If I have ANY reason to believe that the driver's ability to safely or legally transport my inventory is questionable or in doubt, then I have EVERY RIGHT to intervene. The Shipper/Receiver /CLIENT/CUSTOMER is under NO obligation to establish proof of intoxication.

Inmate1577:

And you may not know that this particular customer just might hate Swift drivers, Hunt or anyone else. The shpr/rcv has made himself liable for a lawsuit by accusing someone of being drunk on duty with no proof to back up the claim, especially if that person loses his job.[/b]

Useless:

Inmate, again, please quote your source of information here. What you are saying is completely wrong. Nowhere was it stated that the shipper accused the driver of being legally intoxicated; the shipper called SWIFT and stated that the driver reeked of alcohol. The odor of alcohol on the driver's person would in and of itself constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion.

As a Consignee, a driver or other vendor who reeks of alcohol is a danger to my people, others, and my property, and poses a threat of liability exposure. Do I allow my employes, vendors, or a driver who smells of alcohol or pot on my premises?? No!!

Inmate1577:

Again..........who are you to decide without any evidence.

Useless:

The fact that the driver smells of alcohol is, in and of itself, reason to suspect alcohol consumption. The shipper is under no legal obligation to provide evidence; by calling LEO, they are demonstrating reasonable concern. You seem to believe that being "legally intoxicated" is the defining issue; not so!! The presence of ANY indication of alcohol, or consumption or use of any illegal substance is all a shipper/receiver need in order to act.

Inmate1577:

Some people stink like garlic.......I guess they are Italian.
If fiance was smart, he should have called and insisted the police give him BAL test and if Swift fired him, he should have called a lawyer and sued both Swift and the shipper.

Useless:

First off, if fiance was smart, he wouldn't have been drinking in the first place. Should have called the police??? Yeah, I'll go along with you on that one!! Then the police could have offered him chauffered ride to The Iron Bar Hotel, where he should be!!

Inmate, where do you get the notion that the driver could somehow sue a shipper for suspecting him of having alcohol in his system, especially given that the driver had the odor of alcohol on him?? The shipper had reasonable grounds to suspected him of being under the influence of alcohol, or having alcohol in his system;again, being legally intoxicated is not the defining issue. Being legally intoxicated is not even an issue here at all!!. Having ANY indication that a driver has alcohol, or any other imparing substance in his system is sufficient reason to call the trucking co., and contact LEO. File suit against Swift?? For WHAT??

Inmate1577:

Wrongful temination -no proof of any intoxication.
But he screwed it by getting ticked and going to a bar.

Useless:

Neither the shipper, nor SWIFT had ANY obligation to prove that Tim was intoxicated. If the shipper smelled what could reasonably be perceived as the odor of alcohol, they were not only within their rights in calling Swift and LEO, they had a duty to do so. Tim's behavior with Swift was beliggerent, therefore Swift had every right to fire him; contrary to what many people believe, Swift had NO Obligation to prove that Tim was legally intoxicated.

No, he screwed the pooch by drinking in the first place!! The problem is NOT that he got caught. That was a Blessing, not a problem. The problem is that he drank in the first place.

Inmate1577:

But here is where any argument goes out the window. There is NO PROOF that he was drunk or even under the influence. No BAL test was given, no arrests were made. So if this guy was smart he can sue the customer for slander which resulted in his termination and sue swift for wrongful termination. Because any proof they have of him being intoxicated is wouldnt hold up in any court.The cops screwed the pooch by not taking a BAL test. If the glove dont fit, you must acquit.

Useless:

Once again, you fail to realize that the shipper had no legal obligation to provide "proof" of anything. In order to be able to sue for "Slander" or Libel, Tim would have to prove that the allegations made by the shipper, and the actions taken by Swift, Were conducted "With knowing, wanton, and wreckless DISREGARD for the truth"....there is a VERY CLEARLY DEFINED understanding of that definition, and how courts interpret and apply it. This situation falls way short.

I'm glad this Loser is off the highways. I Hope he never gets another chance. This is a "One and Done" Offense, as far as I'm concerned. It occurred in a big truck.

Inmate 1577:

He'll be back on the road unless you can come up with a criminal charge or any physical evidence that will hold up in court..............
Time for another beer.

Useless:

Time will tell!!

You probably weren't much of a marksman, either. :D

So, are you gonna give up gun owning, too?? :shock: :?: :lol:

Just kiddin' ya, Terry. Very GOOD advice and judgement!

We give up SO much to become truckers.... sobriety should be easy!

But, many of us know that it is not.

useless, i agree 100%. if any driver even smells of alcohol he ain't got no rights. period. maybe inmate has an idea about just what level of alcohol breath a shipper has to allow someone on their private property and be forced to entrust with several thousand $$ worth of their product , which has be be delivered by a certain time? how much beer does he carry in his truck to maintain that breath smell? someone please post dot rules regarding alcohol usage by commercial drivers then lock this topic, because it is just gonna go around in circles.

Should have read the rest of this thread, and then you would have answered your own question. This is just for you CB, now watch careful.......



"§382.207 Pre-duty use.

No driver shall perform safety-sensitive functions within four hours after using alcohol. No employer having actual knowledge that a driver has used alcohol within four hours shall permit a driver to perform or continue to perform safety-sensitive functions "


Answers the question?
I love these new Listerine strips; I hate candy so I eat these like candy.
My mother asked me 1 time; after I ate 1 if I had been drinking, imagine that. Let them prove you were drinking. To the rest of the posters, just because you obtain your CDL doesn’t mean you can never drink again, get REAL, just don’t drink to excess, and never be under the influence when you drive any motor vehicle. Nobody here knows the facts of what really happened here and you are all so quick to slam the guy. Maybe the OP is another troll trying to stir the pot! Most of you are quick to point that almighty finger to down someone and you weren’t even there, what a lovely life you must lead!!!!

If he doesn't get drunk and beat her, then the relationship can be worked on.

However, there is a dependency issue with the finacee because once he is under suspicion of alcohol consumption, he throws his integrity RIGHT out the window by running the the bar for a drink...and NOT a Pepsi.

I agree with useless and the shipper having the right to deny a driver suspect of being under the influence onto their property. It is a lawsuit waiting to hapen.

However, the finacee could have been drinking hard alcohol the night before and had started sweating it out, when in fact, he had been away from a bottle for 10-12 hours :shock: I know this because I work household....lol

Its GOOD that this so called driver is off the road !!! I have NO empathy/sympathy for this drivers problems whatsoever.